Environmental Law
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989)
Study notes for Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Agency decisions under NEPA not to prepare a supplemental EIS are reviewed for arbitrariness and capriciousness, and not with heightened scrutiny.
In Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, the Supreme Court clarified the standard of review for agency decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The central issue revolved around whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (the Corps) decision not to create a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in light of new information was arbitrary and capricious, which the Court ultimately determined it was not. This case exemplifies the importance of balancing environmental concerns with governmental project needs, emphasizing the administrative discretion exercised by agencies when faced with new data regarding environmental impacts.
The Court's decision underscored the necessity for courts to apply a deferential standard of review to agency decisions, specifically the arbitrary-and-capricious standard rather than a more exacting de novo standard. Notably, the Court permitted the inclusion of explanatory affidavits to help elucidate agency rationales when technical complexities arise, signifying recognition of the specialized nature of environmental expertise and agency deliberation processes in upholding statutory obligations under NEPA.
Marsh Means Methodical - Agencies Need to Mindfully Evaluate New Studies.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council | In Robertson, the Court examined the sufficiency of an EIS rather than the decision to prepare a supplemental EIS, focusing on procedural compliance rather than subsequent information review. |
| Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers | Sierra Club emphasized the need for environmental assessment in ongoing projects, while Marsh dealt specifically with the applicability of NEPA's requirements in light of already issued documents. |
The arbitrary-and-capricious standard encourages agency expertise and allows for flexible decision-making in the face of new data, which can facilitate timely project implementation.
This standard may hinder environmental protections by allowing agencies to downplay significant new information, weakening public trust in agency decision-making.
Exams may focus on how Marsh illustrates the judicial standards for reviewing agency compliance with NEPA, particularly regarding the arbitrary-and-capricious standard and the treatment of new information.