From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
National Wildlife Federation and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Association of Homebuilders
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
345 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (2004)
In 1968, Congress charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (defendant) with administering the National Flood Insurance Program (the program). FEMA’s implementation of the program encouraged development within floodplains and consisted of multiple components, including identifying flood-prone communities, establishing safety criteria for states and municipalities to adopt, establishing a flood-insurance program, implementing a community rating system to evaluate flood plans, and overseeing community participation in the program. The National Wildlife Federation and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (collectively, the environmental groups) (plaintiffs) filed an action against FEMA and the National Association of Homebuilders (collectively, FEMA) (defendants). The environmental groups claimed that FEMA had violated § 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (the act) by not consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service (the service) regarding how the program’s implementation might affect Puget Sound chinook salmon, which was a threatened species. The environmental groups argued that the program had the potential to affect the salmon because it encouraged development in floodplain areas, which reduced the salmon’s habitat. The environmental groups sought a declaration that FEMA violated § 7(a)(2), an injunction requiring FEMA to consult with the service, and for the court to retain jurisdiction to ensure that FEMA lawfully implemented the program. FEMA argued that the environmental groups lacked standing and that it was not required to consult the service because it had no reason to believe that the salmon would be affected. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered the case.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Zilly, 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 604,000 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
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 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 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.