Delaware Audubon Society v. Secretary of the Interior
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
612 F.Supp.2d 442 (2009)
The Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge (Prime Hook), located in Delaware, was formed to provide habitat for migratory birds and other species. Regulations implementing the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA), 50 C.F.R. §§ 25.12 and 25.21, required the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) (defendant) to make a written compatibility determination as to whether a proposed use of the national-wildlife-refuge land was compatible with the refuge’s purposes. The FWS entered into 37 cooperative-farming agreements that allowed Prime Hook to be used for commercial farming. Prior to entering into these agreements, the FWS did not make any compatibility determinations or conduct studies to determine if farming was compatible with Prime Hook’s purposes. The agreements allowed farmers to use genetically modified (GM) crops, which was in violation of the FWS’s policy that GM crops could only be used if they were essential to accomplishing the refuge’s purposes. In April 2006, the Delaware Audubon Society, Inc. (Audubon) (plaintiff) brought suit against the FWS, claiming that cooperative farming with GM crops violated the NWRSAA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Audubon sought to enjoin cooperative farming until the completion of a compatibility determination, and to enjoin GM crop cultivation until the completion of environmental review under NEPA. The cooperative agreements expired in December 2006. After the commencement of the lawsuit, the FWS stated that it would not enter into any additional agreements until the completion of compatibility determinations and NEPA review. The FWS argued that Audubon’s claims were moot, because cooperative farming and farming with GM crops had ceased at Prime Hook and would not resume until the completion of the compatibility determinations and NEPA review. Audubon moved for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Sleet, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.