Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Rice

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the information already before the Corps, including two FWS biological opinions, demonstrated that the Corps took “a hard look at the project before deciding to fore-go the time and administrative costs of preparing an [EIS]”
• holding “recovery plans are for guidance purposes only”
• “[T]here is no legal requirement that an Environmental Assessment be circulated publicly and, in fact, they rarely are.”
• “In response to the suit, the F.W.S. requested that the Corps resume § 7 consultation on the permit.”
• “[W]e hold that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Corps acted arbitrarily and capriciously by relying on these Opinions when consultation with the F.W.S. is exactly what is required by the relevant statutory scheme.”
• “To determine whether an agency decision was arbitrary and capricious, the reviewing court must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).