Last November, Indian Marin Audubon Societyv. Federalavigation AdministrationThe Panel divided by the US DC Patratulation Court has concluded that the Environmental Quality Council lacks a legal authority that issues binding regulations on the National Environmental Policy Law (Nepa). The CEQ first issued such regulations in the 1970s, and the decision was a big deal because such regulations were often the basis of Nepa litigation against federal government agencies.
According to a senior judge Landolph (the addition of Prime Minister Henderson), he explained why Nepa’s text was not read to give such authority. Thus, the majority of panels concluded that federal government agencies are obliged to comply with Nepa itself, and only regulations that may have been adopted to implement NEPA requirements.
Judge Slinibasan opposed the CEQ’s legal authority, not in front of the court (because it was not explained), but did not need to resolve the questions presented to the court.
All parties in the case have filed a petition to the DC circuit to reexamine the lawsuit. Temporarily, President Trump issued Presidential order Withdraw the regulations of NEPA and instruct CEQ to cancel Carter management EO It issued such regulations to CEQ and instructed to comply with institutions.
Today, DC circuit I refused the petitionBut Judge Srinivasan wrote an opinion that the majority of the court of the court would respect the denial of EN BANC. This opinion (reproduction below) seems to be designed to be contained. Marine Audubon Without creating a means for judging the Supreme Court. However, I do not think it is effective.
The Supreme Court has very clear that the court scrutinizes the claims of regulated authorities. Few people have challenged the authority of CEQ to issue CEQ regulations (perhaps the fact that Carter EO has violated these regulations and the Lawyers of the Justice Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Lawyers. He has never been instructed to challenge whether it is a basis or not), and it was strong that the parliamentary debate delegated such authority to CEQ, and could not comply with such regulations. I claim that the institution is not justified. (On the other hand, the claim was that the institution did not follow its own NEPA regulations, but it will present another question.)
It is worth remembering that the Supreme Court itself is considering the Nepa case at this time, and this question is not in front of the court, but it will certainly pay attention. Some judge who approve the panel of Judge Landolph separately, in effect, some of the judge who invites additional liters to raise this claim in the subsequent incidents. Sho. The scenery of NEPA has been changed forever.
The following are the opinions of Sulinibasan who respects the denial of EN BANC reconstruction.
Slinibasan’s chief judge who has participated in the patrol judge Millet, Pilad, Wilkins, Child, Pan, and Garcia and agree to deny the rehearsal of Bank:
All parties are seeking a BANC rehearsal about a panel’s opinion that the majority of panels have no authority to issue binding Nepa regulations. In my opinion, the involvement of the panel of the panel violated the principle of the party’s presentation, as the party that raised or explained the problem was raised or explained. See the United States vs. SINENENENG-SMITH590 US 371, 375 (2020); Marin Audubon Soc’yv. FAA121 F.4th 902, 920 –22 (DCCIR. 2024) (SRINIVASAN, CJ, partially opposite).
All parties agree and urged the en -ban court to allow a part of the panel to switch to review, but I agree with the rehearsal of EN BANC. In this case, the panel was unanimously controlled by supporting the issues completely on the same ground (posted by the parties and short). See ID。 In 915 – 18, the rejection of the panel for the authority of the CEQ that issues binding Nepa regulations means unnecessary for the disposal of the panel. See ID。 AT 921 (SRINIVASAN, CJ, partially opposite). In fact, the conclusion did not independently support the disposal of panels to put the challenged actions aside. Related CEQ regulations do not need to do anything to the agency, so instead of providing options that depend on the NEPA exclusion of categories. See ID。 922 (SRINIVASAN, CJ, partially opposite); gov’t pet. The conclusion that CEQ has no authority to issue binding regulations for 14 -year -old REH’G EN BANC is affected by the challenging choice of institutions here to use categories. No. In these situations, there is no reason to give a bank rehearsal. Al-Bihaniv. See Obama619 F.3D 1, 1 (DCCIR .2010) (Sentelle, CJ, and Ginsburg, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, & Griffith, JJ.[ing] To ban these two cases ” [the relevant] No questions are required to dispose of the merits. “