Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

lawsuitappealsummary judgmentwilljudicial review
hearingwill

Related Cases

Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 587 U.S. 761, Nuclear Reg. Rep. P 20,809, 139 S.Ct. 1894, 204 L.Ed.2d 377, 19 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5467, 2019 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5233, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 903
View Case »
National Pork Producers Council v. U.S. E.P.A., 635 F.3d 738, 72 ERC 2205
View Case »
Florida Key Deer v. Paulison, 522 F.3d 1133, 66 ERC 1225, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 515
View Case »
Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 66 F.Supp.3d 875
View Case »
Causby v. U.S., 109 Ct.Cl. 768, 75 F.Supp. 262
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Village of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Marsh, 956 F.2d 970, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,033

Facts

The United States Army Corps of Engineers prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed Montano Bridge and concluded that the project would not cause significant environmental impact, thus not necessitating an EIS. The Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the Corps, arguing that the finding of no significant impact and the failure to prepare an EIS violated NEPA. The district court ruled in favor of the Corps, leading to the appeal.

The United States Army Corps of Engineers prepared an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) of the effects of building the proposed Montano Bridge. Based on the EA, the Corps decided that the project would cause no significant environmental impact and therefore concluded that it need not prepare an EIS.

Issue

What is the appropriate standard for judicial review of an agency's determination that a project does not have sufficient environmental impact to require an Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA?

the appropriate standard for reviewing determination of United States Army Corps of Engineers that bridge construction project would cause no significant environmental impact and that there was no need for an environmental impact statement was the arbitrary and capricious standard of the Administration Procedure Act.

Rule

The appropriate standard for reviewing an agency's determination that a proposed project will not have significant environmental impact is the arbitrary and capricious standard as outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act.

the appropriate standard for reviewing an agency's determination that a proposed project will not have environmental impact significant enough to require an EIS is the arbitrary and capricious standard of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

Analysis

The court applied the arbitrary and capricious standard to the Corps' determination, emphasizing that the decision involved substantial agency expertise and factual disputes. The court noted that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council was applicable, as it established that the agency's decision should not be set aside unless it was arbitrary or capricious. The court found that the Corps' conclusion was supported by the EA and did not warrant an EIS.

the court views the Supreme Court's reasoning as equally applicable to an agency's initial decision that a project will not have significant environmental impact.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the government, concluding that the Corps' determination was not arbitrary or capricious.

the court AFFIRMS the prior judgment in that regard, which is the only issue considered in this rehearing en banc.

Who won?

The United States Army Corps of Engineers prevailed in the case because the court found that their determination regarding the environmental impact of the Montano Bridge was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court concludes that the prior Order and Judgment in this case applied the correct standard of review, the court AFFIRMS the prior judgment in that regard.

You must be