Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Dakota Access, LLC v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 20-5197, 20-5201 · judgment January 26, 2021
Before the decision, about 7.4× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a D.C. Circuit decision below, and a circuit split argued in the petition.
Question presented
The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requires that, before taking any “major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” a federal agency must first prepare a “detailed” environmental impact statement (“EIS”). 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The agency first prepares a shorter environmental assessment to determine whether the action’s environmental impacts are “significant.” If so, the agency prepares an EIS; if not, it prepares a finding of no significant impact. In Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, this Court held that when reviewing an agency’s decision to forgo an EIS, courts must “defer” to the agency’s “‘informed discretion’” even when they “find contrary views more persuasive.” 490 U.S. 360, 377- 78 (1989). In the decision below, however, the D.C. Circuit deviated from that approach. It asked whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had “convinced the court” it was unnecessary to prepare an EIS—on top of the hundreds of pages of environmental analysis the Corps already performed—for the Corps’ decision to grant an easement for a pipeline that crosses a narrow strip of federally owned land. App. 15a-16a. Because the panel was not convinced by the Corps’ response to criticisms of the pipeline, it upheld the district court’s orders requiring the Corps to prepare an EIS and vacating the easement. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, under NEPA, an agency that carefully considers all criticisms of its environmental analysis must also “resolve” those criticisms to the court’s satisfaction to justify a finding of no significant impact; and
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Miguel A. Estrada
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
For respondent
Nicole E. Ducheneaux
Big Fire Law & Policy Group
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences
Amicus briefs
1 merits
(1 supporting pet./neither)
Linked docket
21M31
Proceedings
- Feb 22 2022Petition DENIED. Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
- Feb 11 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
- Jan 19 2022Rescheduled.
- Jan 05 2022DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
- Jan 04 2022Reply of petitioner Dakota Access, LLC filed. (Distributed)
- Dec 17 2021Brief of Federal respondent in opposition filed.
- Dec 16 2021Brief of respondents Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, et al. in opposition filed.
- Nov 18 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 17, 2021, for all respondents.
- Nov 17 2021Brief amici curiae of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, et al. filed.
- Nov 16 2021Motion of the Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from November 17, 2021 to December 17, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 12 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 17, 2021, for all respondents.
- Nov 10 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 17, 2021 to December 17, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Oct 18 2021Motion (21M31) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal Granted. Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
- Sep 29 2021MOTION (21M31) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.
- Sep 20 2021Motion (21M31) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal filed.
- Sep 20 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 17, 2021)