Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Hopper

827 F.3d 1077 (2016)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Hopper

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
827 F.3d 1077 (2016)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

Cape Wind, a wind-energy company, sought to construct wind turbines (Cape Wind project) off the coast of Massachusetts. In 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 transferred primary regulatory authority of offshore renewable-energy projects to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (the bureau) (defendant). Accordingly, the bureau assumed authority over the Cape Wind project. The bureau reviewed a draft environmental-impact statement issued by another federal agency regarding the project and decided that it would prepare its own environmental-impact statement. In 2006, while the Cape Wind project was under review by the bureau, emails from the bureau geologist overseeing the geological section of the environmental-impact statement indicated that Cape Wind had not adequately addressed geological hazards related to the project and that the geological surveys conducted by Cape Wind were not sufficient to support approval of the project. In 2007, the bureau geologist again raised concerns over the adequacy of the geophysical data for the project. In 2009, the bureau published its final environmental-impact statement and later issued a lease for the Cape Wind project. The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, and others (environmental groups) (plaintiffs) sued the bureau, alleging that the bureau violated NEPA. The environmental groups claimed that the 2009 environmental-impact statement was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to assess the geological hazards adequately and relied on inadequate geological surveys. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the bureau and dismissed the case. The environmental groups appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Randolph, 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 796,000 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 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 796,000 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
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 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