| 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) |  |
|
11 Comments
Lauren S
10/25/2021 07:43:34 am
The National Association of Home builders vs. Defenders of Wildlife is about water pollution and the Supreme Court reviewed the EPA’s letter ad reviewed the language in the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water act. Justice Alito wrote for the 5-4 majority that the requirements of section seven of the ESA only apply to discretionary agency action. Regulation will be carried out through the department of interior and NOAA.
Jack Smith
10/25/2021 07:51:23 am
Cases over the years have reached the court that deal with ESA. Supreme Courts have the power to uphold protections and prevent what are deemed harmful actions need be with the goal of protecting a species. In the case Winter vs NRDC, it was determined that lower courts had unlawfully prevented the Navy from undergoing training exercises that could have harmed costal wildlife.
Claire
10/25/2021 07:51:25 am
The National Association of Home Builders vs Defenders of Wildlife court case worked to review the protections of Section 7 of the Endangered Species and The Clean Water Act. The case was working to insure that any action taken will not affect existing or endangered species. The EPA comes into play in this court case because the EPA addressed that case lacked compliance with the the Section 7 of the ESA.
Peter
10/25/2021 07:51:33 am
In National Association of Home Builders V. Defenders of Wildlife, there was contention over the process by which the protection of land could be transferred to the states. The argument was over legal terminology and what was meant by certain wording in a law. The Supreme Court ruled that the language applied less broadly, and thus the EPA had greater ability to transfer authority to the states (in this case Arizona).
Helena
10/25/2021 08:01:48 am
In the Bennett v. Spear case, the supreme court got involved in order to solve the issue of water rights that were affected by the ESA. Basically, due to the ESA's actions to protect an endangered species, there would be less water downstream for irrigation. The supreme court decided that the people have a right to sue, due to having a civil suit. However, the government decided that Congress has a right to intervene, which means that the people no longer had any standing. The court ruled that the people did not have a right as the plaintiffs cannot use the citizen suit provision against the secretary other than to make them do nondiscretionary action.
Lydia
10/25/2021 12:41:23 pm
In the winter v NRDC, the Supreme Court stepped in to decide if the Navy’s training methods conflicted with environmental policies that protected endangered species. The Supreme Court settled the debate and states that the Navy’s trainings were more important and favored them.
Wedge
10/25/2021 12:43:56 pm
The Supreme Court got involved when the navy said that lower courts were making unfair rules so their involvement was more about that instead of the animals. With the whales a federal court in California made regulations on things like how far away an animal is and sonar percentage that the navy had to follow. These rules tried to be taken away and that’s where issues came up with what lower courts had power to do
Mikaela
10/25/2021 01:03:31 pm
Home builders V. defenders of wildlife is about the Court resolving conflicting mandatory language in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. They did this so this everything followed the same rules and nothing contradicted between private companies and government.
Naidaly
10/26/2021 01:57:47 pm
In the National Association of Home Builders vs. Defenders of Wildlife in which the conflict was the mandatory language in section 7 of ESA, section 402(b) of the CWA. These conflicts were addressed due to how the defenders of Wildlife argued its threat to endangered species and the various permits being issued. Wrote for a 5-4 majority was required of section 7 shared Justice Alito, due to it applying only to discretionary agency action. The regulated joint issue fell on the NOAA and DOI, the rulers stayed the same private and public had their own deal.
Kiera Anderson
10/26/2021 02:00:46 pm
In the Winter v. NRDC the Supreme Court looked at if the Navy’s training violated environmental laws. In the end it was decided that National security was more important than protecting marine animals.
Maria
10/26/2021 02:01:54 pm
The National Association of Home Builders V. Defenders of Wildlife was a case to resolve conflicting language used in the ESA and the CWA. It was concerning water pollution jurisdiction and resolved in order to determine who had authority to consult and advise on the behalf of the better of animals 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 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
