National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife

National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 17, 2007
Decided June 25, 2007
Full case name National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife
Holding
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Dissent Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Laws applied
Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act

National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about federal jurisdiction over anti-pollution statutes. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the Court, holding that the Endangered Species Act did not require the Environmental Protection Agency to apply additional criteria when evaluating a transfer of pollution control jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer wrote dissenting opinions.

Contents

Facts

The Clean Water Act instructs the Environmental Protection Agency to turn over authority under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System to a state if that state's proposal meets nine listed criteria. Arizona issued such a proposal. The EPA regional office replied with the concern that the transfer might violate the Endangered Species Act, which prohibits agencies from taking actions that might jeopardize endangered species. The EPA consulted the Fish and Wildlife Service, which advised that the Endangered Species Act was inapplicable because the EPA had no authority to consider additional factors beyond the nine Clean Water Act criteria. On the advice of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the EPA approved the transfer of authority to Arizona.

Procedural history

Defenders of Wildlife, a non-profit organization concerned with endangered species, challenged the transfer, arguing that the Endangered Species Act imposed an independent requirement on the EPA's decision to approve the transfer. The EPA argued the Endangered Species Act was not an independent source of authority, but imposes requirements only on the discretionary decisions of federal agencies. Since its decision was non-discretionary under the Clean Water Act, the agency argued, the Endangered Species Act did not apply. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found in favor of the Defenders of Wildlife and invalidated the transfer, finding that the Fish and Wildlife Service opinion was flawed and that the EPA's reliance on it "arbitrary and capricious" and inconsistent with previous transfers of permitting authority, in which the impact on endangered species was considered.

Decision

Issues

  1. Can a court require that state-run Clean Water Act pollution permitting programs include protections for endangered species?
  2. Does the Endangered Species Act constitute an independent source of authority for federal agencies?
  3. Is the EPA's approval of a state permitting program the legally relevant cause of impacts to endangered species resulting from future private land use activities?
  4. Was the Court of Appeals correct that the EPA's decision to transfer pollution-permitting authority to Arizona under the Clean Water Act was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on inconsistent interpretations of the Endangered Species Act? If so, should the Court of Appeals have sent the case back to the EPA for further proceedings without ruling on the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act?

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court, written by Justice Alito, held that the EPA's decision was not arbitrary and capricious, even if internally inconsistent. "The federal courts ordinarily are empowered to review only an agency’s final action," Alito wrote, "and the fact that a preliminary determination by a local agency representative is later overruled at a higher level within the agency does not render the decisionmaking process arbitrary and capricious." The Court also agreed that because the decision was not discretionary, the Endangered Species Act did not apply.

Stevens's Dissent

Justice Stevens dissented, writing that while the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act conflicted, precedent under Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill[1] and others require that the Endangered Species Act's requirements be given precedence over other aims of federal agencies.

Breyer's Dissent

Justice Breyer joined in Stevens's dissent, but differed in reserving judgment "as to whether §7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ... really covers every possible agency action even of totally unrelated agencies...."

See also

Notes

  1. ^ 437 U.S. 153 (1978)

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужно решить контрольную?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • National Audubon Society v. Superior Court — National Audubon Society Formation 1905 Type Non profit organization Purpose/focus Conservation of birds, other wildlife and healthy ecosystems. Headquarters New York, NY Coordinates …   Wikipedia

  • National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 — The provided guidelines and directives for administration and management of all areas in National Wildlife Refuge system including wildlife refuges, areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with… …   Wikipedia

  • National Environmental Policy Act — For other uses of NEPA , see NEPA (disambiguation). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Full title National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Acronym NEPA Enacted by the 91st United States Congress …   Wikipedia

  • National Priorities List — Map of NPL sites in contiguous US The National Priorities List (NPL) is the list of hazardous waste sites in the United States eligible for long term remedial action (cleanup) financed under the federal Superfund program. Environmental Protection …   Wikipedia

  • National Ambient Air Quality Standards — Counties in the United States where one or more National Ambient Air Quality Standards are not met, as of June 2007. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are standards established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency …   Wikipedia

  • National Environmental Education Act — The National Environmental Education Act of 1990 is an act of Congress of the United States of America to promote environmental education. In this act, Congress found that threats to human health and environmental quality are increasingly complex …   Wikipedia

  • Endangered Species Act — Full title An Act to provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants, and for other purposes Acronym ESA Enacted by the 93rd United States Congress Effective …   Wikipedia

  • Clean Water Act — For Clean Water Act of Ontario, Canada, see Clean Water Act (Ontario). Clean Water Act Full title Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 Acronym CWA / Clean Water Act Enacted by the 92nd United …   Wikipedia

  • Antiquities Act — Devils Tower, the first National Monument The Antiquities Act of 1906, officially An Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities (16 USC 431–433), is an act passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt on… …   Wikipedia

  • Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 — The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712 (although §709 is omitted), is a United States federal law, at first enacted in 1916 in order implement the convention for the protection of migratory birds… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”