TOPICS
TOPICS
Justices limit courts' role in forcing agencies to act
The Supreme Court Monday blocked a lawsuit that accused the federal government of not doing enough to protect undeveloped Western land from off-road vehicles, the Associated Press reported.
In the case, Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the court said that environmental groups cannot use courts to force the federal Bureau of Land Management to more aggressively safeguard about 2 million acres of potential wilderness in Utah.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said Congress never envisioned "pervasive oversight by federal courts over the manner and pace of agency compliance."
The Supreme Court had been asked to clarify when a federal agency can be sued for failing to follow a congressional mandate. The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the department could be sued for allowing damage to the lands. Justices reversed that decision.
The case involved the 1946 Federal Administrative Procedure Act, which says federal courts can compel agencies to act under certain circumstances. A federal district court determined that the law was limited to final agency decisions and "mandatory, nondiscretionary activities" -- not ongoing processes like monitoring land use. A panel of judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled that judgment.
During oral argument on the case, several justices indicated they were likely to overturn the appeals court's ruling. "I'm not willing to accept your proposition that it's the role of the courts to make sure agencies toe the line," Scalia told Paul Smith, a lawyer for the group who filed the suit against the BLM. "That's the president's role."
Tom Shoop contributed to this report.
COMMENTS
- Hey Scalia--why do we need a court when it cannot do its job? If the President does not do his congressionally-mandated job the courts should force him to comply! The question is rationality and the courts need to decide what is reasonable. Just ignoring the problem is not the proper role for the court! They sure ruled fast when Nixon refused to spend money appropriated. This latest ruling means that government agencies do not need to perform under the endangered species act or other conservation acts unless the President specifically directs them to, and then there is no defined level of effort. The court has to become involved to resolve what is reasonable both in terms of effort level and timing. How long does Defense have to comply with the 1990 Chief Financial Officers Act? It is now 14 years and they are no closer today than they were five years ago. Also, we now see that it will take about another seven years to get the systems required to comply. If the system development started with the law in 1990 maybe the Defense Department would be compliant today! Who is going to make this an issue if not the courts? Congress will not cut Defense funding, particularly with the Bush wars going on. tax payer Posted June 24, 2004 7:30 AM
- An activist court is only valuable when it is defending the president's position. If it is defending the people's position then it is just an out of control activist court. Wouldn't you know it, our buddy, Scalia is the ring leader of this scam decision. What a joke, the guy is a bum. GovExec.com reader Posted June 15, 2004 7:47 AM
