Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. Federal Aviation Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because the overflight statute directed the FAA to manage instead of bar air traffic, Congress must have intended that some overflights would continue
• noting that “in the Park Service’s view, natural quiet is a resource because it is relevant to visitor enjoyment”
• noting that Chevron “governs our analysis of the validity of an agency’s interpretation of a statute.”
• stating that as long as the final rule would achieve the mandates of the overflights statute, the court did not find anything in the act that prevented the FAA from considering air tour industry interests in issuing its final rule
• denying mandamus partly because “this is not a case where an agency has been contumacious in ignoring court directions to expedite decision-making”
• declining to order agency action notwithstanding a 10-year delay in issuing a rule and a 20-year delay in achieving the rule’s statutory objective

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).