Ecology Center, Inc. v. Austin
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
430 F.3d 1057 (2005)
- Written by Abby Keenan, JD
Facts
After wildfire burned a large portion of the Lolo National Forest, the United States Forest Service (defendant) developed a project aimed at rehabilitating the old-growth forest. The Forest Service prepared an environmental-impact statement (EIS) setting out four alternatives and ultimately selected a project that included commercial thinning and prescribed burning in old-growth stands. Ecology Center, Inc. (plaintiff) challenged the logging in old-growth forest in federal district court. Ecology Center claimed that the planned interventions violated the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) because they were experimental and had uncertain effects on old-growth-dependent species. The Forest Service admitted that it had only limited evidence the planned treatment was not harmful and that it had not directly monitored the treatment’s effects. But the Forest Service argued that it could reasonably assume, based on the short-term effects of the treatment, that the treatment would not harm dependent species in the long-term. The Forest Service argued that this methodology was entitled to deference. The district court granted summary judgment for the Forest Service, and Ecology Center appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.