Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Tohono O’odham Nation, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, Archaeology Southwest, and the Center for Biological Diversity (collectively, "Plaintiffs") who filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Bureau of Land Management (collectively, "Department"). The Plaintiffs allege that the Department violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by issuing two limited notices to proceed (LNTPs) for the construction of a transmission line by SunZia Transmission, LLC, before fulfilling its NHPA obligations. The Plaintiffs claim that the San Pedro Valley, through which the transmission line runs, is a historic property protected under the NHPA.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona allowed SunZia to intervene as a defendant. The district court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequently granted the Department's and SunZia's motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court also denied the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, deeming it futile. The Plaintiffs then appealed the district court's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's order dismissing the action. The Ninth Circuit held that the LNTPs constituted final agency actions because they represented the Department's final decision that the requirements for a Programmatic Agreement (PA) had been satisfied, allowing SunZia to begin construction. The court found that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the Department violated the PA by failing to consult with the Plaintiffs on a historic property treatment plan that would evaluate whether the San Pedro Valley should be designated as a historic property. The court inferred that proper consultation would have likely resulted in the Valley being designated as such. Consequently, the Plaintiffs also plausibly alleged that the Department violated the PA by authorizing construction before properly identifying all historic properties affected by the project and ensuring that any adverse effects would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR" on Justia Law

In 2019, New York City enacted Local Law No. 97, requiring significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings, aiming for a 40% reduction by 2030 and an 80% reduction by 2050, relative to 2005 levels. Shortly after, New York State passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), targeting a 100% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, with an interim goal of a 40% reduction by 2030. The Climate Act tasked the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) with setting statewide emissions limits and established a Climate Action Council to develop a Scoping Plan for achieving these targets.Plaintiffs, representing residential buildings subject to Local Law No. 97, filed a declaratory judgment action claiming the local law was preempted by the Climate Act. The defendants, including the City of New York and its Department of Buildings, moved to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint entirely. However, the Appellate Division modified this decision, denying the motion regarding the preemption claim and affirming the rest. The Appellate Division held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the Climate Act did not preempt Local Law No. 97.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division's decision. The Court held that the Climate Act does not preempt the field of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The Court emphasized that the Climate Act's legislative findings and savings clause indicate an intent to allow complementary local regulations. The Court concluded that the State did not express or imply an intent to preempt local efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and thus, Local Law No. 97 is not preempted by the Climate Act. The certified question was answered in the negative, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. View "Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc. v City of New York" on Justia Law

The Village of Morrisville, Vermont, sought to renew its federal license to operate a hydroelectric project in the Lamoille River Basin. The project had been in operation since 1981. Morrisville applied for a water quality certification from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, which is required under the Clean Water Act for projects that may result in discharges into navigable waters. After lengthy discussions and two rounds of revisions, Vermont issued a conditional water certification. Dissatisfied with the conditions, Morrisville argued that Vermont waived its certification authority by allowing Morrisville to withdraw and resubmit its application twice.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reviewed the case and found that Morrisville had unilaterally withdrawn and resubmitted its application to negotiate more favorable conditions, rather than at the behest of the state. FERC concluded that there was no evidence of a coordinated scheme between Morrisville and Vermont to delay the certification process. Consequently, FERC determined that Vermont did not waive its statutory certification authority.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and upheld FERC's decision. The court found that Morrisville's actions were unilateral and in its own interest, and there was no mutual agreement with Vermont to delay the certification process. The court distinguished this case from Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, where there was a clear agreement to delay certification. The court concluded that Vermont did not waive its certification authority and denied Morrisville's petitions for review. View "Village of Morrisville, VT v. FERC" on Justia Law

Two environmental groups, WildEarth Guardians and Western Watersheds Project, challenged a decision by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to open new domestic sheep grazing allotments, known as the Wishbone Allotments, in the Rio Grande National Forest, Colorado. The groups argued that the allotments posed a high risk of disease transmission to local populations of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, which are vulnerable to diseases from domestic sheep.The USFS had previously vacated larger grazing allotments in 2013 and 2015 due to high risks to bighorn sheep, based on a "risk of contact model" (RCM). However, in 2017, the USFS decided to open the Wishbone Allotments despite the RCM predicting a high risk of contact. The USFS justified this decision by considering additional local factors, such as geography and herding practices, which they claimed would mitigate the risk. The environmental groups objected, arguing that these local factors were unsupported by scientific data.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denied the groups' petition, finding that the USFS did not violate the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The groups then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.The Tenth Circuit found that the USFS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving the Wishbone Allotments. The court held that the USFS failed to provide a reasoned explanation for downgrading the RCM's high-risk rating based on local factors, which lacked scientific support. The court also found that the USFS did not adequately consider the cumulative impacts on neighboring bighorn sheep herds. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case to determine the appropriate remedy. View "WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service" on Justia Law

Several hundred children in Benton Harbor, Michigan, suffered from elevated lead levels in their blood after drinking lead-contaminated water from the city’s public water system for three years. Plaintiffs, represented by their guardians, filed a lawsuit against various state and city officials, as well as two engineering firms, alleging that these parties failed to mitigate the lead-water crisis and misled the public about the dangers of the drinking water. The claims included substantive-due-process and state-created-danger claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state-law negligence claims.The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed the complaint in full. The court found that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege a violation of their constitutional rights and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their federal claims against the city and state officials and the state-law claims against one of the engineering firms.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the state officials, finding that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that these officials acted with deliberate indifference. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the claims against the city officials and the City of Benton Harbor, finding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that these officials misled the public about the safety of the water, thereby causing the plaintiffs to drink contaminated water. The court also reversed the district court’s declination of supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the engineering firm and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint. View "Mitchell v. City of Benton Harbor" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization challenged the United States Forest Service's approval of a forest thinning project in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington. The project aimed to reduce wildfire risk and improve forest health through various treatments, including tree thinning and prescribed burns. The organization argued that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not reopening the public comment period after significant changes were made to the project following a wildfire, and by failing to consider a reasonable range of alternatives and the cumulative effects of the project.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service, finding that the agency had complied with NEPA requirements. The court held that the Forest Service was not required to repeat the public comment process and that the Environmental Assessment (EA) considered a reasonable range of alternatives.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the Forest Service was not required to repeat the public comment process because the changes made to the project did not pose new environmental questions or render the public's comments on the Draft EA irrelevant. The court also found that the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives and that the use of condition-based management did not inherently violate NEPA.However, the court reversed the district court's decision regarding the cumulative effects analysis. The Ninth Circuit held that the EA's discussion of cumulative effects was insufficient because it did not consider the cumulative effects of the Twisp Restoration Project in combination with the Midnight Restoration Project, which was originally part of the same project. The court remanded the case for the district court to order the Forest Service to remedy the deficiencies in the EA and determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. View "North Cascades Conservation Council v. Forest Service" on Justia Law

A solar energy company, Harvey Solar I, L.L.C., applied to the Ohio Power Siting Board for a certificate to construct a solar-powered electric-generation facility in Licking County, Ohio. The project faced opposition from a local citizens group, Save Hartford Twp., L.L.C., and 11 nearby residents, who raised concerns about the environmental and economic impacts of the project, including visual impacts, flooding, wildlife disruption, noise, water quality, and glare.The Ohio Power Siting Board reviewed the application and conducted an evidentiary hearing. The board staff investigated the potential impacts and recommended approval with conditions. The board ultimately granted the certificate, subject to 39 conditions, including requirements for visual screening, floodplain coordination, wildlife impact mitigation, noise control, and stormwater management.The residents appealed the board's decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing that the board failed to properly evaluate the project's adverse impacts and that Harvey Solar did not provide sufficient information as required by the board's rules. They contended that the board's decision was unlawful and unreasonable.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that the board had acted within its statutory authority and had not violated any applicable laws or regulations. The court determined that the board had sufficient evidence to make the required determinations under R.C. 4906.10(A) and that the conditions imposed on the certificate were reasonable and appropriate. The court affirmed the board's order granting the certificate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the solar facility. View "In re Application of Harvey Solar I, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The case involves the Center for Biological Diversity challenging the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of Colorado's revised implementation plan for ambient air quality standards. Colorado revised its plan in 2019, changing the wording of a permit requirement for new emission sources and adding language to the definition of a key threshold for evaluating compliance. The Center argued that the revisions would prevent regulators from blocking construction of new sources that generate excessive emissions and allow regulators to disregard emissions during drilling, fracking, and well completion.The EPA approved Colorado's revisions, leading the Center to file a petition for review. The State of Colorado intervened to defend the revisions. The Center contended that the revised permit requirement and the new definition of "commencement of operation" would undermine air quality standards.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected the Center's first challenge, concluding that the Center had not shown an effect from the revised wording in the permit requirement. However, the court agreed with the Center on the second challenge, finding that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to address the potential emissions during drilling, fracking, and well completion. The court held that the EPA did not independently assess whether the revised definition created a substantive change and remanded the case to the EPA for further explanation without vacating the EPA's prior approval of the revised definition. The court denied the petition for review regarding the revised permit requirement but granted it concerning the revised definition of "commencement of operation." View "Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA" on Justia Law

Two environmental organizations challenged a July 2020 Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued by Wildlife Services, an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The EA and FONSI authorized a predator damage and conflict management program in Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas in Nevada. The plaintiffs argued that the program violated the Wilderness Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Wildlife Services. The court concluded that predator control in Wilderness Areas to support pre-existing grazing operations was permissible under the Wilderness Act. The court also found that the agency's statewide analysis of the environmental impacts was reasonable and that the agency had adequately considered the potential impacts on public health, Wilderness Areas, and the scientific uncertainty regarding lethal predator damage management (PDM).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the Wilderness Act claim, holding that lethal PDM is permissible in Wilderness Areas when conducted in support of pre-existing grazing operations. However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment on the NEPA claim. The court found that the EA failed to take the required "hard look" at the environmental impacts, particularly regarding the geographic scope of the PDM program, the potential impacts on public health, the unique characteristics of Wilderness Areas, and the scientific uncertainty surrounding lethal PDM. The court remanded the case to the district court to direct the agency to reconsider whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required and to produce either a revised EA or an EIS. View "WILDEARTH GUARDIANS V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION WILDLIFE SERVICES" on Justia Law

Steven Gomes filed a lawsuit to invalidate ordinances regulating groundwater use in Mendocino, adopted by the Mendocino City Community Services District (the district). The district argued that Gomes’s claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior case, Gomes v. Mendocino City Community Services Dist. (2019) (Gomes I), which challenged the district’s groundwater management program. The trial court found the ordinances contained an invalid attorney’s fee provision but rejected Gomes’s other claims.In Gomes I, the trial court denied Gomes’s petition challenging the district’s 2007 groundwater measures, but the judgment was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found the district had authority to limit groundwater extraction and that the 2007 measures were invalid due to non-compliance with statutory procedures. The district subsequently adopted new ordinances in 2020, which Gomes challenged in the present case.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. Gomes argued the ordinances imposed fees for groundwater extraction that required voter approval, which the district did not obtain. The court concluded that the claim was not barred by Gomes I, as it involved different ordinances and provisions. The court held that the fees imposed by the district were not for the extraction of groundwater and thus did not require voter approval under section 10710. The judgment was affirmed, except for the invalid attorney’s fee provision. View "Gomes v. Mendocino City Community Services Dist." on Justia Law