Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Buffalo Field Campaign V. Zinke, Hallee C. Kansman
Buffalo Field Campaign V. Zinke, Hallee C. Kansman
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Despite years of litigation and legislation, the protection status of bison in and around Yellowstone National Park remains unsettled. Buffalo Field Campaign, a non-profit group, has spent decades spearheading the fight to list the species as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Buffalo Field Campaign v. Zinke tests the scope of agency directives and the strictness of the statutory language which guides agency actions.
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Lowell J. Chandler
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Lowell J. Chandler
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The ESA protects threatened or endangered species, and species likely to become threatened or endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of their range. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona overturned a Fish and Wildlife Service policy defining the significant portion of range language in the ESA. The policy interpretation limited ESA protections to apply only when a species faced risk of extinction throughout its entire range. The court deemed this policy impermissible because it effectively rendered the significant portion of range language meaningless. …
Anglers Conservation Network V. Pritzker, Lindsay Ward
Anglers Conservation Network V. Pritzker, Lindsay Ward
Public Land & Resources Law Review
After the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council declined to further investigate an amendment that would add two species of fish to a management plan, the appellants brought suit stating that federal agencies failed to properly manage river herring and shad in the Atlantic Ocean. Appellants asserted this inaction triggering judicial review under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court refused to find the National Marine Fisheries Services subject to judicial review, holding that the Council was not a government agency and that not amending the act did not constitute final agency action.
Environmental Integrity Project V. Mccarthy, Lindsay Ward
Environmental Integrity Project V. Mccarthy, Lindsay Ward
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In addition to stocking grocery stores and restaurants with beef, chicken and milk, CAFOs generate another product—manure. The EPA’s decision to withdraw a proposed rule compelling CAFOs to provide information to aid the agency in regulating their discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States was upheld by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The court concluded that the EPA’s decision was “adequately explained” and “coherent,” supported by the administrative record, and did not conflict with existing law.
High Country Conservation Advocates V. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), Kathryn S. Ore
High Country Conservation Advocates V. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), Kathryn S. Ore
Public Land & Resources Law Review
High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Service concerns the United States Forest Service’s and the Bureau of Land Management’s authorizations of on-the-ground mining exploration activities in the Sunset Roadless Area of western Colorado. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado’s holding has far-reaching consequences for federal agencies’ analysis and disclosure of impacts on the climate under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). In addition to bolstering the Plaintiffs’ recent successes at establishing legal standing to challenge federal agencies’ disclosures and analyses of impacts on the climate under NEPA, High Country is the first case to …