Illinois South Project, Inc. v. Hodel

844 F.2d 1286 (1988)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Illinois South Project, Inc. v. Hodel

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
844 F.2d 1286 (1988)

Facts

Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to regulate strip mining. The SMCRA delegated regulatory authority to the Department of the Interior, although courts repeatedly stopped the regulations that the department attempted to implement. The SMCRA also gave states the right to propose their own regulatory systems, which Illinois (defendant) did. After several years and iterations of Illinois’s proposed regulatory system, the federal government approved Illinois’s plan. Several organizations (the organizations) (plaintiffs) sued Illinois, claiming that Illinois’s state SMCRA plan was defective in more than 50 ways. Eventually, Illinois prevailed in the district court. The organizations appealed, narrowing their challenge. One of the challenges on appeal related to the SMCRA’s requirement of a complete application. In particular, before the federal government was obligated to act on mining-permit applications, businesses had to submit a complete application. Under the federal regulations, a complete application meant that the regulatory authority had determined that the application contained sufficient information for review purposes. By contrast, Illinois’s plan required the applicant to make an apparent good-faith effort to address the required information. The organizations claimed that this difference meant that Illinois’s plan was invalid because businesses needed to engage only in a good-faith effort. But evidence indicated that the federal government read the good-faith standard to mean that (1) businesses had to submit all the information required under the federal standard and (2) the information had to be submitted in good faith (i.e., the data had to have some reasonable basis). Thus, according to the federal government, the good-faith standard was additive to the federal standard. Illinois claimed that this reading of its regulation was the correct one.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, J.)

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 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership