Washington County, North Carolina v. U.S. Department of the Navy
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
357 F. Supp. 2d 861 (2005)
- Written by Abby Keenan, JD
Facts
The United States Department of the Navy (defendant) prepared an environmental-impact statement (EIS) regarding its plan to build a landing field for aircraft training near an important habitat for migratory waterfowl. Several counties and environmental groups (the waterfowl advocates) (plaintiffs) filed suit in federal district court, claiming that the Navy had failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in preparing the EIS and seeking a permanent injunction to halt construction until the Navy complied with NEPA. The waterfowl advocates argued that the Navy had failed to fairly consider alternatives but instead had selectively presented evidence to support a predetermined site selection. In so doing, according to the waterfowl advocates, the Navy misstated study conclusions in order to minimize impacts on the birds, failed to conduct adequate site visits during the relevant bird migration periods, and failed to adequately study the impacts of bird-aircraft strikes but instead attempted to extrapolate from data derived from smaller bird species in less concentrated populations. The Navy responded that it had done all that was required under NEPA by taking a hard look at the environmental impacts, and that NEPA did not prohibit an agency from having a preference in the outcome when preparing an EIS.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boyle, 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.