Document Actions

WELC at the Supreme Court - Defending your right to challenge harmful government regulations

DECISION JUST IN! WELC argued at the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge forest service rules denying citizen input.

UPDATE: DECISION JUST IN, SEE BELOW!

A case that started out as an important challenge to the Bush administration’s weakening of the public’s ability to have input on National Forest decisions has turned into an even farther-reaching case before the highest court in the land.

WELC successfully challenged regulations issued in 2003 which eliminated the ability for people to comment on, and appeal if necessary, many Forest Service actions including timber sales, oil and gas development, and off-road motorized vehicle use.

Despite our winning at every level so far, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case on the broader issue of whether citizens can ever “facially” challenge government regulations and have them set aside if found illegal, or whether citizens should be limited to challenging “site specific” applications of such rules. If the court decides in favor of the U.S. Forest Service, an agency regulation that is applied nationwide, but found to be illegal by a court will remain in effect, except in that limited application, i.e. a specific timber sale or mining lease. Therefore, in order to completely stop the illegal regulation from being applied, you’d have to go to court in every jurisdiction where it is in play.

“The government knows that the public interest community’s resources are limited, and the ruling in this case may lead to unlawful government action—whether it’s a timber sale or deprivation of personal rights—going unchecked,” says WELC attorney Matt Kenna, who been the lead on the case since 2003 and will argue the case before the Supreme Court.

The potential devastating impacts of this case has garnered it significant interest from the public interest arena and business, academic, and state government communities. All of these groups have filed amicus briefs on WELC’s side, except for the timber and building industries, which have filed amicus briefs arguing that while business should be permitted to “facially” challenge government rules, public interest entities should not.

Kenna argued the case, Priscilla Summers, et al. v. Earth Island Institute, et al., at the Supreme Court on October 8, 2008.

Decision Just In:

On March 3, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a very limited 5-4 decision, reversed the lower courts’ findings that had overturned a Bush administration rule that denied citizens the right to have a voice in the management of national forests. (Summers v. Earth Island Institute). However, the Court rejected the Bush administration’s attempt to create a broad ruling that would have severely limited citizens the right to challenge any unlawful government regulation.

“We are disappointed that the Court reinstated these harmful forest regulations,” said Matt Kenna, the WELC attorney who argued the case before the Court. “However, the Court’s ruling was narrow in scope and did not accept any of the government's broad theories that would have precluded citizens from challenging a federal regulation except when applied to a specific project. This was the most critical issue at stake- if the government had prevailed on its theory, citizens would have had to file thousands of individual suits to challenge harmful regulations on a case-by-case basis while the government could continue to apply the regulation even in the face of multiple court rulings finding the regulation unlawful.”

Click here to read the press release.