Kleppe v. Sierra Club

Kleppe v. Sierra Club

Opinion

  [*394]   [***581]   [**2723]  MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.]

Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ³ (NEPA) requires that all federal agencies include a detailed statement of environmental consequences -- known as an environmental impact statement -- "in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that officials of the Department of the Interior (Department) and certain other federal agencies must take additional steps under this section, beyond those already taken, before allowing further development of federal coal reserves in a specific area of the country. For the reasons set forth, we reverse.

Respondents, several organizations concerned with the environment,  [***582]  brought this suit in July 1973 in the United States [****9]  District Court for the District of Columbia. ⁴ The defendants in the suit, petitioners here, were the officials  [*395]  of the Department and other federal agencies responsible for issuing coal leases, approving mining plans, granting rights-of-way, and taking the other actions necessary to enable private companies and public utilities to develop coal reserves on land owned or controlled by the Federal Government. Citing widespread interest in the reserves of a region identified as the "Northern Great Plains region," and an alleged threat from coal-related operations to their members' enjoyment of the region's environment, respondents claimed that the federal officials could not allow further development without preparing a "comprehensive environmental impact statement" under § 102(2)(C) on the entire region. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The District Court, on the basis of extensive [****10]  findings of fact and conclusions of law, held that the complaint stated no claim for relief and granted the petitioners' motions for summary judgment. ⁵ Respondents appealed.  Shortly after oral argument but before issuing an opinion on the merits, the Court of Appeals in January 1975 issued an injunction -- over a dissent -- against the Department's approval of four mining plans in the Powder River Coal Basin, which is one small but coal-rich section of the region that concerns respondents. 166 U.S. App. D.C. 200, 509 F. 2d 533. An impact statement had been prepared on these plans, but it had not been before the District Court and was not before the Court of Appeals. In June 1975 the Court of Appeals ruled on the merits and, for reasons discussed below, reversed the District Court and remanded for further proceedings.  [*396]  169 U.S. App. D.C. 20, 514 F. 2d 856. The court continued its injunction in force.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.