Hanly v. Mitchell - 460 F.2d 640 (2d Cir. 1972)

Rule:

The Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: 1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and 2) all agencies of the Federal Government shall xxx (C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on- xxx (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.

Facts:

Plaintiff residents Denis Hanly et al., brought an action against defendants, Attorney General of the United States and associated officials, seeking to enjoin the construction of a federal jail near two large apartment complexes. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against further construction work. As they alleged that defendants were required by the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 4332(2)(C), to make an environmental impact statement on the effect of the building on the quality of the human environment. For their part, defendants had determined that there was no need to make the impact statement. Ruling on the action, the trial court denied the motion finding that the refusal to make the impact statement was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Further, the court concluded that plaintiffs did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm if the injunction was not issued and that the balance of equities rested with defendants. From those rulings plaintiffs’ appeal.

Issue:

Were the plaintiffs entitled to a preliminary injunction under 42 U.S.C.S. § 4332(2)(C)?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the decision in part and affirmed in part. The court held that plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction against further construction until a proper determination under § 4332(2)(C) was made. However, the court disagreed with plaintiffs that defendants were, in effect, estopped from arguing that no detailed impact statement was necessary. Of course, any written consideration of environmental impact can loosely be called an impact statement, or a mini-impact statement, but use of particular words cannot be determinative. Thus, the court remanded for further consideration.