Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc. v. United States Department of the Army

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “[n]othing in the CEQ regulations requires circulation of a draft EA for public comment, except under certain ‘limited circumstances,’ ” and rejecting Anderson’s contrary language as dicta
• finding that a data tower proposal was not without precedent because similar intrusions existed in Martha's Vineyard
• finding that a data tower proposal was not without precedent because similar intrusions existed in Martha’ s Vineyard
• declining to defer to an agency's interpretation of a law it found to clearly express legislative intent
• “[D]eference is not due to interpretations that are post hoc rationalizations offered by an agency seeking to defend past agency action against attack.”
• \The most dispositive indicator of congressional intent is the conference report.\ (quoting United States v. Commonwealth Energy Sys. & Subsidiary Cos., 235 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 2000))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).