In re: Jason M. Lee AND Janice Chen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the administrative record did not need to include materials compiled by the agency in connection with earlier proceedings; WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2009)
• suggesting that a party may supplement the administrative when “background information [is] needed to determine whether the agency considered all the relevant factors” (cleaned up)
• noting that Overton Park analysis was premised on public/private cost and disruption disparities and that it is this \automatic advantage\ that calls for \exceptional agency push-back\
• determining that even if another alternative would cause no impacts to wetlands, the agency’s decision not to choose it was not arbitrary and capricious where the alternative had other negative effects
• finding that “some deference is due the agency’s interpretation under either Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), or Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140(1944
• explaining that “unusual circumstances” justify introducing extra-record evidence “if the agency deliberately or negligently excluded documents that may have been adverse to its decision” or “if the agency failed to explain administrative action so as to frustrate judicial review”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).