38 Cited authorities

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council
467 U.S. 837 (1984) Cited 16,016 times 500 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"
United States v. Mead Corp.
533 U.S. 218 (2001) Cited 2,592 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Customs classification ruling "has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron " but can "claim respect according to its persuasiveness"
Abrego Abrego v. the Dow Chemical Co.
443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 4,426 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that the silence of the Class Action Fairness Act regarding the burden of proving removal jurisdiction indicated Congressional intent to leave intact the common law rule placing the burden on the defendant
Russello v. United States
464 U.S. 16 (1983) Cited 2,093 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
490 U.S. 332 (1989) Cited 1,388 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding NEPA does not require a "worst case analysis"
Kleppe v. Sierra Club
427 U.S. 390 (1976) Cited 1,017 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that role of court in reviewing agency action under NEPA is to ensure agency has taken a "hard look" at environmental consequences; the court cannot "interject itself within the area of discretion of the executive as to the choice of the action to be taken."
Lands Council v. McNair
537 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 700 times
Holding that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to verify its model with on-the-ground data
Northwest Ecos. v. U.S. Fish Wildlife
475 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 176 times
Holding that “the DPS Policy is a reasonable construction of ‘distinct population segment’ ”
Alaska Center for the Environment v. U.S. Forest Service
189 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 216 times
Holding that once an agency makes a determination based on proper factors, the decision implicates substantial agency expertise and is entitled to deference
Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv
418 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 175 times
Holding that the Forest Service's EIS failed to demonstrate that the proposed project complied with the applicable Forest Plan requirements, and remanding to the Forest Service to fix the error
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,503 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 706 - Scope of review
5 U.S.C. § 706 Cited 20,427 times 184 Legal Analyses
Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"
Section 4332 - Cooperation of agencies; reports; availability of information; recommendations; international and national coordination of efforts
42 U.S.C. § 4332 Cited 3,613 times 28 Legal Analyses
Requiring that agencies prepare environmental impact statements where major agency action would significantly affect the environment
Section 4321 - Congressional declaration of purpose
42 U.S.C. § 4321 Cited 3,498 times 30 Legal Analyses
Describing the purposes of NEPA as including "encourag[ing] productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment"
Section 4331 - Congressional declaration of national environmental policy
42 U.S.C. § 4331 Cited 697 times 3 Legal Analyses
Recognizing "the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man," and declaring the federal government’s responsibility to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage"
Section 21002 - Policy of state as alternatives or mitigation measures lessening environmental effects of public agency projects
Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21002 Cited 216 times
In section 21002, part of CEQA, the Legislature declared, "[I]t is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects...."
Section 6591b - Administrative review
16 U.S.C. § 6591b Cited 23 times
(a) In general Except as provided in subsection (d), a project described in subsection (b) that is conducted in accordance with section 6591a(d) of this title may be- (1) considered an action categorically excluded from the requirements of Public Law 91-190 ( 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and (2) exempt from the special administrative review process under section 6515 of this title. (b) Collaborative restoration project (1) In general A project referred to in subsection (a) is a project to carry out forest
Section 6591a - Designation of treatment areas
16 U.S.C. § 6591a Cited 13 times
(a) Definition of declining forest health In this section, the term "declining forest health" means a forest that is experiencing- (1) substantially increased tree mortality due to insect or disease infestation; or (2) dieback due to infestation or defoliation by insects or disease. (b) Designation of treatment areas (1) Initial areas Not later than 60 days after February 7, 2014, the Secretary shall, if requested by the Governor of the State, designate as part of an insect and disease treatment
Section 6554 - Applied silvicultural assessments
16 U.S.C. § 6554 Cited 4 times
Providing that projects "carried out under this section ... may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement and environmental assessment under [NEPA]"
Section 1501.4 - Categorical exclusions
40 C.F.R. § 1501.4 Cited 751 times 9 Legal Analyses
Explaining that agencies may prepare a concise environmental assessment to determine if a more detailed environmental impact is required
Section 1507.3 - Agency NEPA procedures
40 C.F.R. § 1507.3 Cited 101 times 11 Legal Analyses
Allowing agencies three years after September 14, 2020, rather than just one year, to propose revisions to their regulations
Section 220.6 - Categorical exclusions
36 C.F.R. § 220.6 Cited 53 times 2 Legal Analyses
Defining the contents of a Decision Memo
Section 220.4 - General requirements
36 C.F.R. § 220.4 Cited 36 times 4 Legal Analyses
Providing that cumulative effects analyses need not "catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions"
Section 1506.8 - Proposals for legislation
40 C.F.R. § 1506.8 Cited 5 times
(a) When developing legislation, agencies shall integrate the NEPA process for proposals for legislation significantly affecting the quality of the human environment with the legislative process of the Congress. Technical drafting assistance does not by itself constitute a legislative proposal. Only the agency that has primary responsibility for the subject matter involved will prepare a legislative environmental impact statement. (b) A legislative environmental impact statement is the detailed statement

Center For Biological Diversity et al v. Ilano et al

38 Cited authorities

Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

Holding that a Customs classification ruling "has no claim to judicial deference under Chevron " but can "claim respect according to its persuasiveness"

Holding that the silence of the Class Action Fairness Act regarding the burden of proving removal jurisdiction indicated Congressional intent to leave intact the common law rule placing the burden on the defendant

Holding that where "Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act," courts presume that "Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion"

Holding NEPA does not require a "worst case analysis"

Holding that role of court in reviewing agency action under NEPA is to ensure agency has taken a "hard look" at environmental consequences; the court cannot "interject itself within the area of discretion of the executive as to the choice of the action to be taken."

Holding that the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to verify its model with on-the-ground data

Holding that “the DPS Policy is a reasonable construction of ‘distinct population segment’ ”

Holding that once an agency makes a determination based on proper factors, the decision implicates substantial agency expertise and is entitled to deference

Holding that the Forest Service's EIS failed to demonstrate that the proposed project complied with the applicable Forest Plan requirements, and remanding to the Forest Service to fix the error

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

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

Requiring that agencies prepare environmental impact statements where major agency action would significantly affect the environment

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

Recognizing "the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man," and declaring the federal government’s responsibility to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage"

Providing that projects "carried out under this section ... may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement and environmental assessment under [NEPA]"

Explaining that agencies may prepare a concise environmental assessment to determine if a more detailed environmental impact is required

Allowing agencies three years after September 14, 2020, rather than just one year, to propose revisions to their regulations

Defining the contents of a Decision Memo

Providing that cumulative effects analyses need not "catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions"