Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
85 F.3d 535 (1996)
Sarasota County, Florida (the County) (defendant) sought to build a municipal landfill. To that end, in November 1989, the County applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) (defendant) for a permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into water without such a permit, and the Corps may grant the permit only if the proposed discharge is consistent with guidelines promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In June 1990, the Corps dispersed notice of the County’s permit application to government agencies, private organizations, and other interested parties. Upon receipt of this notice, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Biological Opinion consenting to the project, and the EPA recommended denial. In response to the EPA’s recommendation, the County submitted an alternative proposal, which included a reduction of the total acreage to be affected. The EPA then withdrew its objections to the project, and the Corps granted the permit. Two weeks later, the Fund for Animals, Inc. (Fund) (plaintiffs) notified defendants of its intent to sue to prevent the construction of the landfill because the proposed site was inhabited by Florida Panthers and Eastern Indigo Snakes, species that the FWS had designated endangered and threatened. The FWS, which had not considered the effect on the Florida Panther or Eastern Indigo Snake when issuing its initial Biological Opinion, issued a new opinion, in which it concluded that the project was unlikely to jeopardize the existence of either species. After the FWS issued this new opinion, the Fund filed its lawsuit. The Corps suspended the County’s permit. Upon considering additional opinions from the FWS and its own independent environmental assessment, the Corps reinstated the permit with some modifications. The Fund filed a second amended complaint, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Dubina, 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 168,000 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.