Kleppe v. Sierra Club
427 U.S. 390 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a comprehensive, regional environmental impact statement (EIS) is required only when there is a formal 'proposal' for a major federal action with a regional scope. The mere contemplation of future action or the existence of multiple individual projects within a region does not trigger the requirement for a regional EIS.
Facts:
- The Northern Great Plains region, spanning parts of Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, is rich in coal reserves located on land owned or controlled by the Federal Government.
- Various federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior, are responsible for issuing leases, approving mining plans, and granting rights-of-way to private companies for coal development in this region.
- The Department of the Interior initiated three studies in the region: the North Central Power Study, the Montana-Wyoming Aqueducts Study, and the Northern Great Plains Resources Program (NGPRP), to assess potential development and environmental impacts.
- These studies were designed to provide information and analysis for future policy decisions but were not part of a formal plan or program to develop the Northern Great Plains region.
- Separately, the Department engaged in a nationwide review of its entire coal-leasing program, resulting in a national-level 'Coal Programmatic EIS' and a new leasing system (EMARS).
- Environmental organizations, concerned about the cumulative environmental effects of individual coal development projects, believed the federal government was pursuing region-wide development without a comprehensive environmental review.
Procedural Posture:
- Several environmental organizations sued officials of the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to compel the preparation of a comprehensive, regional EIS for the Northern Great Plains region before allowing further coal development.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the federal officials, finding no claim for relief.
- The environmental organizations, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals issued an injunction against the approval of four mining plans and later reversed the District Court's judgment, remanding the case with instructions.
- The federal officials, as petitioners, sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require federal agencies to prepare a comprehensive, regional environmental impact statement (EIS) for an entire geographic area where multiple individual coal-related projects are proposed or contemplated, in the absence of a formal federal proposal for region-wide action?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. NEPA's requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement is triggered only when an agency makes a recommendation or report on a 'proposal' for major federal action. Because there is no evidence of a proposal for an action of regional scope, but only proposals for actions of local or national scope, a regional EIS is not required. The statute clearly states that an EIS is required for 'proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions,' and the Court found no existing or proposed plan or program for regional development. The various studies undertaken by the Department were for informational purposes and did not constitute a regional plan. Without a concrete proposal, there is no factual predicate for the analysis an EIS requires, and any such document would be speculative. A court cannot compel an agency to prepare an EIS by balancing court-devised factors before a formal proposal is made, as this would be an improper judicial intrusion into the agency's decision-making process.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Marshall
Yes, in principle a court should be able to intervene before a formal proposal, although not on the facts of this case. While agreeing with the majority's ultimate judgment, the dissent argues that the Court's holding unnecessarily limits the ability of federal courts to enforce NEPA's goal of ensuring early consideration of environmental factors. The dissent supports the Court of Appeals' four-part balancing test as a sensible way to determine when an agency's failure to begin preparing an EIS on a contemplated action violates the law, thereby allowing for a remedy before it is too late. Waiting until a formal proposal is made invites post-hoc rationalizations rather than genuine environmental assessment and is an inadequate and wasteful remedy. The majority's rejection of this approach is based on an overly rigid interpretation of the word 'proposal' and speculative fears of excessive litigation and judicial meddling.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrowed the scope of judicial enforcement under NEPA by establishing a bright-line rule that an EIS is only required upon a formal 'proposal' for action. The decision curtails the ability of courts to compel agencies to conduct broad, programmatic environmental reviews based on the cumulative impacts of contemplated or related individual projects. It gives agencies substantial discretion to determine the timing and scope of NEPA analysis, shielding their pre-decisional planning from judicial review until a concrete action is officially proposed. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge an agency's failure to consider cumulative impacts on a regional scale before individual project approvals have already begun.
Unlock the full brief for Kleppe v. Sierra Club