Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

Full Case Name
SIERRA CLUB; National Audubon Society; Audubon Arkansas; Charles Mills, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Granville Parnell, Plaintiff, Yancey Reynolds, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein, In his Official Capacity as Current District Engineer, Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Defendants, Southwestern Electric Power Company, Intervenor defendant-Appellant; Hempstead County Hunting Club, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Southwestern Electric Power Company, Defendant-Appellant, United States Army Corps of Engineers; Colonel Jeffrey R. Eckstein, District Engineer, Vicksburg District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; United States Department of the Interior; Ken Salazar, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior; United States Fish and Wildlife Service; Rowan Gould, Acting Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Defendants
Description

Environmental activists brought action against the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and electric utility company for violating Clean Water Act (CWA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the process of obtaining a permit to construct a new coal-fired power plant. Court ruled that irreparable harm, balance of hardship, and public interest supported injunction.

Cite
645 F.3d 978
Date
07-14-2011
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
United States
URL
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/220994/sierra-club-v-united-states-army-c…
Plaintiffs
Organization
Defendants
Other Governmental Entity
Incident Location
Hempstead County, AR
Disputed Act

Environmental organizations brought action against Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and electric utility for violating the Clean Water Act (CWA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the process of obtaining a permit to construct a new coal-fired power plant. Preliminary injunctions were granted in part and permit work was ordered to halt. Utility appealed.

Holding
Court of Appeals held that suffered injury in fact required for standing was met; plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent injunction; balance of hardship favored injunction; and public interest supported injunction.
Disposition
affirmed
general illumination
commercial lighting