The extent to which the environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ apply to federal actions abroad has become one of the most controversial NEPA questions now concerning the federal courts and agencies.

On May 15, 1978, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tried its hand at resolving the thorny question of the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA's) environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements to the federal budget process. The court ruled in Sierra Club v.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated for public comment proposed regulations designed both to reform and upgrade federal agency compliance with all aspects of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and to lessen the burden felt by the agencies in preparing environmental impact statements (EISs) under the Act.¹ The regulations were drafted in response to Executive Order No.

In a decision that may have substantial repercussions on the enforcement of environmental protection statutes, the Supreme Court on May 23 declared in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.¹ that a provision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act² authorizing warrantless inspections of workplace premises for safety hazards³ violates the Fourth Amendment.

On May 23, the United States Supreme Court upheld a state scheme for hunting licenses that required nonresidents to pay 25 times the fee of residents for the right to shoot elk in Montana. In Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission,¹ Justice Blackmun, writing for the six-man majority, found that hunting was a recreational activity and thus not protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.

In a decision anxiously awaited by advocates of historic preservation and land use planners, the Supreme Court on June 26 upheld the consituationality of both New York City's Landmarks Preservation Law and the city's refusal under it to permit construction of a 50-story office building above Grand Central Terminal. The Court's ruling in Penn Central Transportation Co. v.

The United States Supreme Court's recent decision to affirm an injunction preventing completion of the Tellico Dam is a classic example of judicial adherence to strict statutory construction. In Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill,¹ the High Court read the Endangered Species Act² to require that the $100 million federal project to stopped because it would extinguish the endangered snail darter, a small fish found only in that of the Little Tennessee River to be flooded by the dam.

On June 23, the United States Supreme Court, in Philadelphia v. New Jersey,¹ struck down a 1974 New Jersey statute which prohibited liquid and solid waste from being transported into the state for disposal. The statute,² designed to protect the state's rapidly diminishing landfill sites and at the same time reduce the environmental threat posed by the treatment and disposal in New Jersey of waste collected elsewhere, was declared to be an unconstitutional burden on the flow of interstate commerce.

Among the flurry of decisions climaxing the last two weeks of its 1978 term, the United States Supreme Court in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.¹ affirmed the constitutionality of the Price-Anderson Act,² which limits private liability for accidents resulting from the operation of federally licensed nuclear power plants.

Administrators of the federal government's public lands are currently facing a major problem in attempting to resolve the conflict between the demand for recreational space for "off-road vehicles" (ORVs), such as trail bikes, dune buggies, and snowmobiles, and the need to protect the lands from serious environmental damage that can be caused by such machines.