| 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. Central Question: How is the Judicial Branch able to use its powers and oversight to influence legislation and executive actions towards the environment? (1.2.c, 1.2.a, 1.2.d, 1.1.c) |  |
|
19 Comments
milner
10/19/2020 07:38:29 am
Regulating animal restrictions
Slacker
10/19/2020 07:42:25 am
The Supreme court became involved in the Navy vs Whales case after the Navy appealed for their injunction and conditions. The court decided to allow the harmful excersizes because it allowed for the betterment of the Navy which was in the public interest more than the protection of whales.
Sienna
10/19/2020 07:47:18 am
The people who brought it to court because they were seeing negative effects in whales from the sonar that the Navy use. A smaller court made a ruling that the Navy would have to stop training in that area so the Navy took it to the Supreme Court. The SC ruled that the smaller courts crossed a line and that the Navy need to train outweighed the plaintiff's needs.
Mia Lang
10/19/2020 07:48:09 am
BABBITT V. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER OREGON- They ruled that was they were unable 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. Supreme Court held that habitat modification is a legitimate application of the word "harm."
Rydl
10/19/2020 07:49:07 am
After the Navy had appealed for their injunction and conditions the Supreme Court had got involved in the Navy vs Whales. The court ruled that the improvement of the Navy is more important than the protection of whales
Hannah Reynolds
10/19/2020 07:53:32 am
The Navy used an MFA sonar that was harmful and caused serious injury to marine mammals. Even George W. Bush stepped in and said that they needed to conduct the tests. The court ruled in favor of the Navy, saying that the lower courts misused their power and that they Navy needed to conduct their training as realistic as possible.
Emma Brown
10/19/2020 07:53:39 am
By the 1930s, the wolf population completely disappeared from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. In 1987, the Service created a plan to
Wattles
10/19/2020 07:54:42 am
In the Tennessee valley authority vs. Hill, the Supreme Court got involved after the court of appeals, and affirmed their decision on not spending the money for the dam. But they did look further into the section 7 of the ESA and it eventually got amended.
liv
10/19/2020 07:56:15 am
Winter v. NRDC: Navy Sonar and Whales: The Supreme Court got involved after the Navy appealed for their injunction and conditions. They decided to allow the harmful practices because it bettered the Navy and that was more in the interest of the people than protecting whales.
Amelia Collins
10/19/2020 07:56:40 am
Defenders of wildlife argued that section 7 requires it to consider threats to endangered species; and that state authority would result in more permits being issued and thus potentially impact the endangered Pima pineapple cactus and the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. The court found that the application would repeal the CWA in part by adding a tenth criterion to the transfer process, and cited Watt v. Alaska for the general rule that repeals by implication are not favored and will not be presumed absent clear legislative intent. Expressed concern that the application of Section 7 to all federal agency actions, discretionary or otherwise, would partially override every federal statute mandating agency action.
McQuillen
10/19/2020 07:57:59 am
WINTER V. NRDC: NAVY SONAR AND WHALES- The Supreme Court became involved in this case because the Navy wanted to use the coast of Southern California for training, but the local whale species was a problem to their training. The Navy then went to the Supreme Court to allow them to train there and they passed a law, so they can legally train there even though it is affecting the local whale populations.
Colby Hehnke
10/19/2020 07:58:27 am
Wolves in Minnesota were being killed in an alarming rate and 400 were shot or trapped and their deaths were causing irreversible damage to the environment. They decided to and they decided that 5 years after the protection of ESA.
Julia Deabreu
10/19/2020 08:02:56 am
Winter v. NRDC: people were concerned that military training off the coast of Southern California would hurt whales and other marine animals. The courts found that potential harm could be caused to these marine animals and that the harm outweighs the benefits of the navy training in that area. The supreme court however, ruled that the navy training is more important than potential harm to marine animals especially because harm was possible and not necessarily likely
Axel
10/19/2020 08:06:57 am
In the first case regarding a species of endangered wildlife, the Darter snail's of Tennessee was originally saved by the supreme court, but eventually the dam that threatened its habitat was built anyway because of course we care more about the dam money than endangered wildlife.
Alyssa Dillon
10/19/2020 12:39:56 pm
For the Winter vs. NRDC, or Navy vs. whales, the Navy was subjected to harming marine animals due to their use of MFA sonar. This was deemed true, but the court completely ignored this fact and deemed it legal because they believed that Navy training was more important that the health and safety of our whales and marine life.
Haley Bates
10/19/2020 12:47:46 pm
In Babbitt V Sweet Home Chapter Of Communities For A Better Oregon a logging company argues they should be allowed to develop and log on the land that was habitat to the endangered northern spotted owls and red cockaded woodpeckers. However under the EPA "taking" (harm, killing, harassing, etc) of an endangered or threatened species is illegal. The court ruled against the logging companies because destruction of habitat contributed to the harm of threatened/endangered animals.
Cariena Murray
10/19/2020 12:48:10 pm
Winter vs. NRDC: basically the navy wanted to use the coast of California to do sonar training, however this was affecting the local whale population. They went to the supreme court to combat this but basically they decided that they needed to protect the people through the navy more then the whale population.
Kyler Harvey
10/22/2020 01:53:18 pm
to prevent the number of endangered species enlarging the ESAs restrictions have increased over the years. The Tennessee valley has a stream that was going to be turned into a hydro electric damn but the findings of the snail darter made it so that stream was protected by the ESA
Alyssa Williams
10/22/2020 02:00:10 pm
They got involved by saying the navy could continue the navy study if they did it in the open ocean 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
November 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
