Search results
18 sty 2008 · The Supreme Court held that Earth Island lacked standing to challenge regulations of the U.S. Forest Service because Article III of the Constitution limits judicial power to extend only to cases and controversies that imminently threaten injury to persons caused by violation of law.
Earth Island Institute Case Brief Summary: Earth Island challenged the Forest Service's regulations exempting small fire-rehabilitation and timber-salvage projects from the notice, comment, and appeal process, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the respondent organizations did not have standing to bring the case.
Get Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee.
Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case decided 5–4 in which several environmental organizations, including Earth Island Institute, brought suit against the United States Forest Service (USFS) to enjoin that federal agency from implementing rules that would allow the salvage sale of ...
EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit [March 3, 2009] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondents are a group of organizations dedicated to protecting the environment.
8 paź 2008 · Earth Island Institute, Heartwood, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club (“conservation groups”) sued the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture, and two individual Forest Service officials (“Forest Service”) in the District Court of the Eastern District of California.
8 paź 2008 · Summers v. Earth Island Institute. Share. Issue: Whether a group of environmental organizations had established standing to contest a series of Forest Service regulations, and whether the challenge was ripe for review under the APA. Judgment: Affirmed in part and reversed in part, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on March 3, 2009.
