Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appeal

appealrespondent

Related Cases

Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 99 S.Ct. 2335, 60 L.Ed.2d 943, 13 ERC 1161, 9 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,390

Facts

The Sierra Club, the National Parks and Conservation Association, and the Natural Resources Defense Council brought suit against the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, alleging that proposed budget cuts to the National Wildlife Refuge System would significantly impact the environment and thus required an EIS. The District Court agreed, ruling that appropriation requests are 'proposals for legislation' under NEPA and ordered the preparation of EISs. The Court of Appeals modified this ruling, stating that EISs are only required for new actions that significantly change the status quo.

Respondents alleged that proposed curtailments in the budget of the National Wildlife Refuge System would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and hence should have been accompanied by an EIS prepared both by the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the Refuge System, and by OMB.

Issue

Does Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act require federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements to accompany appropriation requests?

The question for decision is whether § 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 853, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), requires federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements (EIS's) to accompany appropriation requests.

Rule

Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires environmental impact statements for 'proposals for legislation' and 'major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.'

Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires environmental impact statements (EIS's) to be included in recommendations or reports of federal agencies on 'proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.'

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the definitions within NEPA and concluded that appropriation requests do not qualify as 'proposals for legislation' or 'major Federal actions.' The Court emphasized that appropriation requests merely fund actions already proposed and do not initiate new actions. Therefore, requiring EISs for appropriation requests would create redundancy, as any significant changes in agency programs would already necessitate an EIS at the programmatic level.

We conclude therefore, for the reasons given above, that appropriation requests constitute neither 'proposals for legislation' nor 'proposals for . . . major Federal actions,' and that therefore the procedural requirements of § 102(2)(C) have no application to such requests.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that appropriation requests do not require accompanying environmental impact statements under NEPA.

We hold that it does not.

Who won?

The Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget prevailed because the Supreme Court determined that NEPA does not require EISs for appropriation requests.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co., 26 N.Y.2d 219, 257 N.E.2d 870, 309 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1 ERC 1175, 40 A.L.R.3d 590

Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. E.P.A., 490 U.S. 1106, 109 S.Ct. 3157 (Mem), 104 L.Ed.2d 1020, 29 ERC 1720

MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services, 340 Or. 117, 130 P.3d 308

Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324

Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 630 F.Supp.2d 295, 69 ERC 2057