Non-governmental organization

Plaintiff church (Prince of Peace) leased part of its land to defendant Solar Socceer Club (Solar) to build soccer fields on Prince of Peace's undeveloped property. In the contract, the parties agreed Solar would use the fields primarily on evenings and weekends, while Prince of Peace would use the fields during the school day for the students in its school. Prince of Peace filed suit against Solar for breach of contract with regard to four provisions, including whether use of the field lights "exceeded the City of Carrollton's standards for light trespass and glare, by as much as six to twelve times the maximum in some locations."

Plaintiff private school filed an application for a special permit with the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumball (Commission) for the installation of four light poles, seventy feet in height, to illuminate the school’s primary athletic field. The Comission denied the special permit after considering concerns from resident neighbors of the private school that allowing the lights would adversely affect the "use and enjoyment" of their properties.

Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill in the San Juan Basin, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to analyze indirect effects of fracking on Chaco Park, a National Historic site, including light pollution from nighttime drilling activity.

Loyola College purchased a property in the Resource Conservation zone, which has the purpose "to foster conditions favorable to a continued agricultural use of the productive agricultural areas of Baltimore County by preventing incompatible forms and degrees of urban uses." The County granted Loyola College a special exception to build a retreat center on this property. Residents filed a suit against Loyola College, objecting to its proposed use of property in that zone. At the trial court, Loyola College presented evidence that there would be minimal impact from their use of the property and that outdoor lighting at the Retreat Center would be "dark skies compliant."

Plaintiffs alleged that the approval by the defendant United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA) application violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Plaintiffs sought an order holding unlawful and setting aside the FWS’ decision to enter into the land exchange and transfer the corridor to JPPHA. The plaintiffs' concerns about the highway include "increased noise and artificial light" which could negatively impact wildlife by "interfering with the ability to avoid danger, locate food, reproduce, migrate, avoid collisions, and evade predators."

The City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment ("Board") granted a use permit to American Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("American Outdoor") to operate an electronic billboard adjacent to Interstate 17. Plaintiff non-profits brought suit to enjoin the electronic billboard, alleging the billboard would violate Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 28-7903 (1998),[3] a provision of the Arizona Highway Beautification Act ("AHBA"), in part due to its intermittent lighting.

Proposition L was a ballot initiative that passed which prohibited the construction of additional billboards within Pomona city limits. Plaintiff, a non-profit composed of Pomona city residents formed to advocate for the enforcement of Proposition L, brought suit against the city of Pomona for entering into an extended agreement with Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Regency) to allow Regency to erect advertising billboards alongside several Pomona freeways. Issues discussed at city council meetings regarding the extended agreement with Regency included "the locations of billboards in the City, types of digital signs, light emissions, and the possibility of negotiating the removal of the three additional signs."

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the United States Forest Service from re-opening the "Canyon Mine" in Northern Arizona, alleging that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and that the "valid existing rights determination" by the Forest Service failed to consider all relevant cost factors. Plaintiff's concerns about the re-opening of the mine involve environmental and historical impacts of the mine on Indigenous land surrounding the mine, as well as dust, truck traffic, light pollution and noise.

The States of California and New Mexico sought to enjoin the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from instituting a rule suspending or delaying (the Suspension Rule) the requirements of the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resourse Conservation Rule. A coalition of 17 conservation and tribal citizen groups also brought suit seeking the same preliminary injunction against BLM. The two cases were consolidated for review. Plaintiffs argued that without a preliminary injunction of the Suspension Rule, "they will suffer irreparable harm in the form of waste of publicly-owned natural gas, increased air pollution and related health impacts, exacerbated climate harms, and other environmental injury such as noise and light pollution."

The plaintiffs alleged that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's wastewater discharge permitting process for an unnamed retail store facility violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) because it did not consider the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the facility other than water quality. Public comments organized by the Department of Environmental Quality included light pollution, noise pollution, and soil pollution, as well as others.