Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe

Holding a decision is committed to agency discretion when there is "no law to apply"

Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council

Holding that courts must defer to the "informed discretion" of federal agencies where the agencies’ decisions require "a high level of technical expertise" (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club , 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) )

Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

Holding NEPA does not require a "worst case analysis"

Camp v. Pitts

Holding that "the focal point for judicial review" of whether agency action is arbitrary and capricious "should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court"

Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen

Holding that, under the National Environmental Policy Act, an agency cannot be considered the legal "cause" of an action that it has no statutory discretion to avoid

Lands Council v. Powell

Holding that reliance on 13–year–old habitat studies was arbitrary and capricious

Klamath-Siskiyou v. Bureau of Land

Holding that a cumulative impact analysis was inadequate where the EA did not address "the potential for a combined effect from the combined runoffs" from two separate minerals or the effect of the loss of the spotted owl's habitat on the region that the petitioner identified

City of Carmel-By-The-Sea v. U.S. Dep't of Transp.

Holding that executive orders with "specific statutory foundation" that do not expressly preclude judicial review are treated as agency action and reviewed under the APA

Earth Island Institute v. U.S. Forest Serv

Holding that a cumulative impact analysis violated NEPA when a FEIS did not assess the role of foreseeable future projects on remaining suitable spotted owl habitat in a nearby home range core area within close proximity to the project's area

Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Section 1331 - Federal question

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Section 706 - Scope of review

Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

Permitting the use of declarations instead

Section 701 - Application; definitions

Adopting the definition given in Section 551

Section 702 - Right of review

Granting judicial review of "agency action"

Section 4321 - Congressional declaration of purpose

Describing the purposes of NEPA as including "encourag[ing] productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment"

Section 303 - Policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites

Listing requirements applicable to the Secretary of Transportation

Section 138 - Preservation of parklands

Section 1500.1 - Purpose and policy

Explaining that the purpose of NEPA's procedures is to make information available before decisions are made

Section 1502.24 - Environmental review and consultation requirements

Noting that agencies should "make explicit reference . . . to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement"

Section 1500.2 - Reserved

Directing federal agencies to "[i]ntegrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency practice so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively"

Section 774.17 - Definitions

Stating that an alternative is not prudent if: it “compromises the project to a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need”; causes severe “social, economic, or environmental impacts,” “disruption to established communities,” or “impacts to environmental resources protected under other Federal statutes”; “results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude”; or “involves multiple factors in ... this definition, that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude”

Section 1502.8 - Writing

Stating that an EIS "shall be concise, clear, and to the point"

Section 1502.18 - List of preparers

Requiring an appendix to “[c]onsist of material prepared in connection with an environmental impact statement (as distinct from material which is not so prepared and which is incorporated by reference (§ 1502.21))”

Section 774.7 - Documentation