Sierra Club v. Peterson [II]
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
228 F.3d 559 (2000) (en banc)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
The United States Forest Service (forest service) (defendant) was charged with managing the national forests in Texas under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (forest-management act). The forest service created a program of timber management to apply to timber sales from the national forests. The timber-management program applied to both past sales and future sales that had not yet occurred. The Sierra Club (plaintiff) challenged the entire timber-management program rather than individual timber sales. The Sierra Club objected to the use of even-aged timber management in the national forests in Texas and sought a wholesale improvement in the forest service’s timber-management program. In its challenge, the Sierra Club used evidence of the effect of individual sales as evidence that the forest service’s on-the-ground management of national forests in Texas over the last 20 years violated the forest-management act. The district court granted an injunction enjoining the forest service’s even-aged management practices, which a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld as proper. The court of appeals voted to rehear the case en banc.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Garza, J.)
Concurrence (Higginbotham, J.)
Dissent (Stewart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
