The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 yesterday that environmental groups can no longer challenge "federal regulations on public lands unless they can prove they are themselves directly threatened by the proposed rules," report Sara Goodman and Dan Berman of Greenwire. The decision backs Bush administration contention that "environmental groups do not have the standing to sue the Forest Service on land management policies that might contradict congressional action," write Goodman and Berman.
At issue in the case, Summers v. Earth Island Institute, was whether the Forest Service had violated a 1992 law designed to ensure that "the agency considers public comment when it writes land and resource management plans -- when it enacted regulations that severely limited the rights of notice, appeals and public comment on certain projects that it deems to have little environmental impact," add Goodman and Berman.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer questioned the future ramificaitons: "Would courts deny standing to a holder of a future interest in property who complains that a life tenant's waste of the land will almost inevitably hurt the value of his interest -- though he will have no personal interest for several years into the future? Would courts deny standing to a landowner who complains that a neighbor's upstream dam constitutes a nuisance -- even if the harm to his downstream property (while bound to occur) will not occur for several years? Would courts deny standing to an injured person seeking a protection order from future realistic (but nongeographically specific) threats of further attacks?" (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment