Citizens For Better Forestry v. U.S. Department Of Agriculture

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that standing may hinge on the failure of an agency to allow public input into the EA/FONSI process
• holding that environmental plaintiffs had established reasonable probability where “the 2000 Plan Development Rule decreases substantive environmental requirements (thus injuring their concrete interest in enjoying the national forests) as compared to the 1982 Plan Development Rule”
• holding that the plaintiffs “were deprived of the opportunity to comment on the [agency’s NEPA documents] at all points in the rulemaking process,” and that “[t]his deprivation violated their rights under the regulations implementing NEPA”
• holding that the plaintiffs “were deprived of the opportunity to comment on the [agency’s NEPA documents] at all points in the rulemaking process,” and that “[t]his deprivation violated their rights under the regulations implementing NEPA”
• holding that “Citizens need not assert that any specific injury will occur in any specific national forest that their members visit,” where they “properly alleged, and supported with numerous affidavits” their members’ use and enjoyment of a “vast range of national forests”
• holding complaint alleging agency failed to provide “public notice” of proposed action and to “solicit appropriate information from the public” asserted “procedural injury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).