Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
53 F.3d 881 (1995)


Facts

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act (Act) provided that the Secretary of Agriculture was to terminate the use of motorized portages in the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area (Area) after January 1, 1984, unless the Secretary determined that there was no feasible nonmotorized means of transporting boats across certain portages in the area. The Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness (Friends) (plaintiff) brought an administrative appeal challenging the continued use of motorized portages in the Area. The Chief of the United States Forest Service (Chief) (defendant) ordered a feasibility study. Based on the results of the study, the Chief decided that, while portaging by nonmotorized means was possible, it was not feasible in light of the risks to the portagers’ health and safety. The Friends challenged the Chief’s decision, and the district court found in the Chief’s favor. The Friends appealed, and the court of appeals reversed on the ground that the Chief’s interpretation of the Act was overly restrictive and contrary to clear congressional intent and the plain meaning of the word “feasible.” The Friends then sought attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The district court denied the request on the ground that Congress’ silence regarding what “feasible” means under the Act made it impossible to conclude that the Secretary’s interpretation was not substantially justified. The court based this decision on its earlier opinion regarding the merits of the case, as well as the dissent in the appeal of that opinion. The Friends appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Gibson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. 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.

  2. 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 170,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.