Alaska Wilderness League v. Sally Jewell
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentD.W. Nelson, Senior Circuit Judge
I agree with the majority that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (the Bureau) did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in approving the oil response plans, and I concur in the majority opinion as to that issue. I respectfully dissent, however, from the remainder of the majority opinion.
In my view, the Bureau was required to engage in consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) before approving Shell’s oil response plans. Moreover, the Bureau should have conducted *1227analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before approving the oil…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Department of Transportation v. Public CitizenSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Natural Resources Defense Coun v. Kenneth SalazarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. United States Forest ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- League of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. United States Forest ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.