Nancy H. Gee v. Claude D. Boyd, Iii, Etc.

1985-04-22

Headline: High court declines to review dispute over environmental impact reviews for a proposed Norfolk marina, leaving appeals court’s deferential standard in place and maintaining inconsistent rules across federal courts.

Holding: The Court denied review, leaving the Fourth Circuit’s decision that the Army Corps need not prepare a full environmental impact statement in place and not resolving conflicting review standards among appeals courts.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the Corps’ decision intact, so no detailed environmental impact statement for the marina.
Keeps different federal appeals courts using different review rules.
Maintains uncertainty for nearby residents and developers about environmental review.

Topics: environmental review, marina construction, administrative law, court review standards

Summary

Background

In 1982, the city of Norfolk asked the Army Corps of Engineers for permission to build a 298-slip marina at an abandoned ferry site near two existing marinas. The Corps prepared a short environmental assessment, concluded the project’s socioeconomic benefits outweighed likely aquatic impacts, and said no full environmental impact statement was needed; it issued the permit the same day. A nearby property owner sued, arguing the Corps should have prepared a full environmental impact statement and should have considered alternatives and verified financial data. Lower courts granted summary judgment to the Corps and related parties.

Reasoning

The key question was what standard courts should use when reviewing an agency’s decision not to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the Corps’ decision under a deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard and upheld it. The opinion explains there is a split among federal appeals courts: some use the deferential test, others apply a stricter “reasonableness” review, and the D.C. Circuit uses a four-part scrutiny test. The Supreme Court declined to review the case and left the appeals court ruling in place.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review, the Fourth Circuit result stands for now: no full impact statement is required for this marina under that court’s standard. The broader disagreement among appeals courts about how closely to examine such agency decisions remains unresolved. That continued split means different parts of the country may face different rules on when agencies must prepare detailed environmental studies.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented from the denial of review and said the Court should have agreed to decide the issue to end confusion among the circuits.