| Guiding Thought Question: Read through the different cases regarding the Endangered Species Act (Choose one from HERE) and give a brief synopsis of how the Supreme Court got involved in the protection of species. Also give a quick summary of how the court ruled. Today's Learning Objective: Students will examine the role of the Supreme Court, how it functions, and its specific powers, and will look at the methods the courts use to influence the political laws of the United States. Students will complete a research project to examine the rights that were protected by a specific Supreme Court Case. |  |
|
22 Comments
Sierra McMain
10/10/2017 11:57:51 am
I chose the Babbitt V. Sweet Home Chapter Of Communities For A Better Oregon. It was fought and believed that they should not be able to develop and log on their land due to the presence of northern spotted owls and red-cockaded woodpeckers listed as threatened under the ESA. The court agreed that the logging on the land was against the ESA act because it was harmful both directly and indirectly to the endangered animals. The court ruled in favor of enforcing the ESA act and protected the animals habitat so the species could reproduce and increase their population.
Karoline
10/10/2017 11:58:13 am
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill: The Snail Darter Case
Chloe
10/10/2017 11:58:36 am
Burger wrote a 6-3 decision affirming the Court of Appeals, and the Court recognized the perceived absurdity in forfeiting tens of millions of dollars of public funds for a small fish, it interpreted both the plain language of Section 7 of the ESA. The TVA wanted to transform the river into a 30-mile-long thing by building the dam. It was declared that the snail darter was an endangered species, the Little Tennessee was its critical habitat, and the impoundment of water behind the Tellico Dam would result in total destruction of that habitat. But they built the dam anyway
Hailey Battreall
10/10/2017 11:59:54 am
The Tennessee Valley Authority wanted to build the Tellico Dam. In 1973 an ichthyologist discovered the snail darter and it was declared an endangered species. The river where they wanted to build the dam was its critical habitat and the dam would result in total destruction of its habitat. The district court recognized the likely extinction of the snail darter but continued Congrsssional funding with awareness of that extinction as an implied exception for the dam. The court of appeals reserved and granted an injunction, ruling that the construction of the dam was a violatoin of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Supreme Court Justice Burger wrote a 6-3 decision affirming the Court of Appeals
Sophie Horvath
10/10/2017 12:01:52 pm
In the Nat’l Assoc. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife it states that the Nat’l Assoc. of Home Builders have to consult on places they build so that the species there is not put in danger.
Aleyse Evers
10/10/2017 12:02:06 pm
Winter v. NRDC: Navy Sonar and Whales:
Eliza
10/10/2017 12:03:28 pm
The Tennessee Valley Authority V. Hill is about a small fish breed that would have been put endanger if the government was to go through with a plan to terminate the Little Tennessee River where it meets with the Big Tennessee River near Knoxville. This would endanger the Snail Darter because it was the Snail Darters main habitat. Congress decided to build the dam anyways. The Supreme Court decided that going out of its way to save a small fish and spending millions of dollars to do so was a waste.
Kristianna Muller
10/10/2017 12:04:46 pm
The issue was Navy Sonar training was injuring marine wildlife. The case first began in the federal district court in California. The Navy was not happy with that decision, which was to no longer allow their exercises, and moved it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided to have conditions for the Navy to follow so they could continue their exercises. While it was in the Ninth Circuit, Bush overruled their decision and allowed the Navy to continue their exercises. With this, the Navy wanted the removal of their conditions, which moved it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that it was more important for the Navy to train in case of attack by enemy submarines than to protect the marine wildlife.
Dalen Hanquist
10/10/2017 12:05:47 pm
As a part of the ESA (1973) the Secretary of the Interior issued a regulation defining harm to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.” to the ESA. The Supreme Court got involved with the "Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities For a Better Oregon" case by enforcing how the word "harm" is defined. There was a group of people who were trying to log and develop their land but couldn't because of the presence of northern spotted owls and red-cockaded woodpeckers listed as threatened under the ESA. The Supreme Court said that harm is defined as "the loss of the ecosystem where the endangered species resides"
Anna
10/10/2017 12:06:54 pm
In 1967 Congress authorized funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority, which would generate hydroelectricity and create recreational opportunities and flood control using the Little Tennessee River. In 1973 a snail darter was discovered to be endangered. The Court of Appeals granted an injunction, which was affirmed after the agency discretion and cost benefit analysis was omitted from the ESA.
Regan
10/10/2017 12:09:01 pm
I read the case WINTER V. NRDC: NAVY SONAR AND WHALES, within this case it talked about how there are harmful effects on marine mammals when it comes to using the different navy equipment during training. It is linked to over 170,000 cases in which marine mammals are harmed or the environment is harmed by these training's. The supreme court expressed how the negative effects to marine life overpower the need for the navy training exercise. The supreme court then went on to vacate the preliminary injunctions to allow exercises to proceed.
Teagan
10/10/2017 12:10:37 pm
In The Limits of Section 7 of the ESA, the Court showed concern that the application of Section 7 to all federal agency actions would partially override every federal statute mandating agency action. They also resolved conflicting mandatory language.They ruled that Section 7 did not apply and the transfer was valid. The Supreme Court has the power of interpreting laws. In this case the Supreme Court is able to decide if the cases make since and and constitutional.
Ally
10/11/2017 07:47:58 am
The TN Valley Authority covers a small breed of fish that was put in danger due to the government building a dam between the TN river and the Big TN river. The gov decided that it wasn't worth the money to save the fish.
slayer
10/11/2017 07:52:00 am
In Nat’l Assoc. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife. At issue in the dispute was the EPA’s transfer of permitting authority to the state of Arizona. While the EPA claimed that it lacked discretion the debate considered threats to endangered species.
Lauryn
10/11/2017 07:58:15 am
I did the Winter v. NRDC and the supreme court got brought into the case because the Navy brought them in because the Navy argued that the actions removed the legal basis for the lower court’s injunction and sought, unsuccessfully, to vacate the injunction in both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had both misapplied the law and improperly weighed the costs and benefits of the naval training exercises in issuing a preliminary injunction and imposing conditions on the challenged training exercises. The Supreme court got involved with endangered species when they realized they were harming an extreme habitat of the snail darter which is an endangered species. So the Court of Appeal declared that building the dam was violating the Endangered Species Act. When it got to the the Supreme Court, they affirmed the Court Appeals.
Seth
10/11/2017 07:59:06 am
in the Tennessee valley authority vs. hill the supreme court ruled that a dam could not be built because of an endangered fish that lived in the river that they wanted to build a dam on.
Interpreter B.O.B
10/11/2017 08:03:37 am
NAT’L ASSOC. OF HOME BUILDERS V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
isabeau
10/11/2017 08:43:17 am
- Winter v. NRDC: Navy Sonar and Whales
Rylee
10/11/2017 11:59:43 am
Tennessee Valley Authority V. Hill
mackenzee holloway
10/11/2017 05:17:33 pm
winter v. NRDC: navy sonar and whales
Hannah
10/11/2017 08:16:34 pm
The Tennessee Valley Authority V. Hill case was about the Tellico Dam being built and how the snail darter was discovered where the construction would take place. The snail darter was an endangered species and total destruction of its habitat would take place if the construction continued. The District Court recognized the extinction of the species, but continued funding for the dam. After the case stating that this was a violation of the ESA, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the fish and the species was saved. Leave a Reply. |
Environmental Policy Class ForumWelcome to the Forum! Here is where you will be answering your daily warm-up questions. Please do not enter your last name for privacy reasons, and you may use a nickname if you would like (Just make sure Mr. Tredinnick is aware of the nickname you are using). Write out thoughtful responses to the forums on the days they are assigned. If you miss a day please take it upon yourself to complete the Forum you missed. Each Forum has the targeted Learning Objective(s) there so you can see what the focus of the day's class will be. Archives
December 2017
Categories |
RSS Feed
