San Juan Citizens Alliance v. Stiles

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that Chenery poses no bar to accepting the agency’s “more natural reading” of an arguably ambiguous record
• finding argument waived because appellant “raised the issue insufficiently in its opening brief”
• “Setting the boundaries of the region to be analyzed involved technical and scientific judgments within the Federal Defendants’ area of expertise, and their conclusion regarding which Class I sites to include in the analysis is one to which we defer.”
• “The deference we give agency action is especially strong where the challenged decisions involve technical or scientific matters within the agency’s area of expertise.” (quotation omitted)
• “The deference we give agency action is especially strong where the challenged decisions involve technical or scientific matters within the agency’s area of expertise.” (quotations omitted)
• “[W]hen specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinion of its own qualified experts, even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive.” (quotations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).