Other Governmental Entity

The City of Chula Vista formulated a development plan for its bayfront. The California Coastal Commission found the City's plan to be in conflict with the California Coastal Act, which required local governments within coastal zones to develop plans that would protect coastal resource areas. Specifically, the California Coastal Commission found that excessive light pollution from the city's proposed development would adversely impact native species in the costal zone.

Under the APA, organizations and individuals who list, visit, and recreate near proposed mines challenged agency decisions allowing Oregon Resources Corp. to operate chromite mines; stated extraction of chromium will impact wetlands and wildlife. Plaintiffs alleged irreparable harm, including light pollution which would impact human habitation.

The plaintiff company failed to obtain a permit from the Town of Columbus prior to installing a new sign for its McDonald's Restaurant. The Township sent the company a Notice of Violation because it's sign violated the Town's sign ordinance by using "flashing and intermittent lights to display its messages."

The plaintiff company, Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. (Adams), filed an application with the Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Weisenberg (the Board) for a building permit to erect an off-premises advertising sign. The Board denied Adams' application because it was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of both its height and off-premises status. After Adams appealed to the Board, the Board granted Adams a variance for the sign and the Board issued Adams a permit, which limited the time period for illumination of the lights on the sign from between 6pm to 11pm. Upon objectors filing an appeal to the Board's permit, challenging the sign's height, the Board then revoked the permit for Adams' sign, and Adams appealed the Board's decision.

A landowner applied to the Dane County Board of Adjustment (BOA) for a conditional use permit in the A-1 Agriculture District Exclusive under the Dane County Zoning Ordinance to build a radio station tower for the University of Wisconsin-Madison's use. The Town of Montrose and individuals within the town appealed to the BOA that the proposed tower was not government use and alleging that it would be not in keeping with the statutory requirements for A-1 Exclusive Districts because of its size, obtrusiveness, lights, and other features. The BOA determined that a tower for a University of Wisconsin-Madison student-run radio station was not "governmental use" because the testimony failed to show that operation of such a radio station by the University of Wisconsin "is an integral part of its educational mission."

Plaintiffs, owners of land near Hill Air Force Base, Utah, brought suit against the United States for compensation due to an avigation easement restricting the light, height of structures, smoke and electrical emissions coming from their land for the purpose of ensuring a safe flight path for aviators taking off and landing at the Air Force Base.

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 2009 Fairchild Air Force Base Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) was a voluntary collaborative planning effort between local communities, federal officials, residents, business owners, and the military. The JLUS identified residential development near military airport bases as concerning because it brought objections from residents about safety, noise, and light pollution, which endangered the long term viability of the military airport bases. Washington State also had passed a statute, Washington State's Growth
Management Act, which aligns with the conclusions of the JLUS study. The City of Airway Heights adopted ordinances to approve residential development near the local Airforce Base. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board invalidated the ordinances because it found they violated the Washington State's Growth Management 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.