A district court held that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) failed to take a hard look at its decision to deregulate alfalfa genetically engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate—the active ingredient in "RoundUp." Substantial questions exist as to whether the deregulatio...
The court holds that a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regulation that prohibits private landowners in Tennessee and North Carolina from intentionally taking red wolves found on their property unless the wolf is attacking or has attacked a person, livestock, or pets, is a valid exercise of fede...
The court holds that farmer and cattlemen associations lack standing under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §551(13), to challenge the U.S. Forest Service's involvement with the Colorado lynx recovery plan, which concerns the introduction of Canadian lynx into the state. The court f...
The court holds that the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), which only allows members of federally recognized Native American tribes to use protected eagle parts for religious purposes, does not violate the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA). The court first recognizes that the ...
The court affirms an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision denying a construction company's application for an equitable adjustment for additional costs incurred hauling waste from its construction activities at a U.S. Navy project at the Lajes Air Base on Terceira Island in the Azores. ...
The court holds that the National Park Service's decision to remove a herd of 12 horses from Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court first holds that the plaintiff foundation provided no support for its assertion that the horse...
Editors' Summary: Property rights advocates implicitly complained in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon that a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation that aimed to protect endangered and threatened species by defining "harm" to include habitat modification impinged on their rights as private landowners by asking them to share with the government responsibility for protecting such species. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as reasonable given the relevant language of the Endangered Species Act.
Editors' Summary: Although most talk in terms of wildlife protection seems to focus on the operation of the ESA, there are a host of other federal and state laws designed to protect wildlife from the impacts of resource-development projects—before the species become threatened or endangered.
Editors' Summary: In 1989, a National Research Council study concluded that contaminated sediments are "widespread in U.S. coastal waters" and have "potentially far-reaching consequences to both public health and the environment." A 1996 interim EPA report reached a similar conclusion. This concern over contaminated sediments is not new. It has manifested itself in a dizzying array of statutory and regulatory restrictions on the disposal of these sediments.
The court holds that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not apply to the Secretary of the Interior's designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The court first holds that an Oregon county has standing to challenge the Secretary's failure to comply with NEP...