Portland Audubon Soc’y v. Endangered Species Committee case
brief summary
984 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1993)
CASE FACTS
Respondent Endangered Species Committee granted an exemption for the Bureau of Land Management for timber sales. Petitioner environmental group challenged the exemption, contending that improper ex parte contacts between the White House and members of respondent tainted the decision-making process. Petitioner's motion also requested leave to conduct discovery.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The court denied petitioner environmental group's motion for discovery and remanded the matter to respondent Endangered Species Committee, holding that plaintiffs' allegations, if true, established a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because respondent's proceedings were governed by the provisions prohibiting ex parte communications.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
984 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner environmental group
challenged a decision of respondent Endangered Species Committee,
which granted an exemption for the Bureau of Land Management for
timber sales.CASE FACTS
Respondent Endangered Species Committee granted an exemption for the Bureau of Land Management for timber sales. Petitioner environmental group challenged the exemption, contending that improper ex parte contacts between the White House and members of respondent tainted the decision-making process. Petitioner's motion also requested leave to conduct discovery.
DISCUSSION
- The court denied the motion for discovery and remanded the matter to respondent, holding that plaintiffs' allegations, if true, established a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.S. § 554(a).
- Respondent's proceedings were governed by the APA provisions prohibiting ex parte communications because respondent's decisions were quasi-judicial, constituted adjudications, and were required to be on the record.
- The court held that the president and his staff were subject to the ex parte contacts ban although the regulations governing respondent's proceedings omitted a reference to the prohibition, because the president was considered an interested person.
- The court held that discovery on appeal was not warranted, but that plaintiffs' allegations required a remand and an evidentiary hearing.
OUTCOME
The court denied petitioner environmental group's motion for discovery and remanded the matter to respondent Endangered Species Committee, holding that plaintiffs' allegations, if true, established a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because respondent's proceedings were governed by the provisions prohibiting ex parte communications.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment