Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Stryckers Bay Neighborhood v Karlen | 444 U.S. 223 (1980)
The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, imposes procedural requirements on agencies that help agencies make well considered decisions. But what happens if a court doesn’t like an agency’s decision? We’ll see the limits of the role of courts in Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council versus Karlen.
In nineteen sixty two, the New York City Planning Commission, in conjunction with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, created a plan to revive twenty square blocks in Manhattan. The plan was originally designed to create a mix of seventy percent middle income housing and thirty percent low income housing. Private companies and government agencies also participated in the creation of the plan. In nineteen sixty nine, local agencies determined that the percentage of low income housing wouldn’t be sufficient to satisfy the needs of the area. The commission amended the plan to include a high rise building with one hundred sixty low income housing units.
Trinity Episcopal School Corporation, a plan participant, sued the commission and HUD and sought an injunction to prevent the construction of the new low income units. Roland Karlen and a community group intervened as plaintiffs, and Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council intervened as a defendant. The district court found in favor of Strycker’s Bay and held that HUD didn’t violate NEPA when it planned to add the high rise. Karlen appealed. The court of appeals affirmed on every issue except the NEPA claim. Although the court of appeals agreed that HUD wasn’t required to prepare a full environmental impact statement, HUD hadn’t studied and described appropriate alternatives, as required by NEPA.
On remand, HUD created a special environmental clearance report, which found that even though there were potential social impacts associated with the new low income building, these problems weren’t serious enough to make the plan unacceptable. Any changes to the commission’s plan could delay the project by more than two years, which HUD found to be an unacceptable delay. In light of HUD’s report, the district court found in favor of HUD again. Karlen appealed, and the court of appeals vacated and remanded again. The court of appeals held that simply considering alternatives wasn’t an end in itself. HUD needed to consider other environmental factors rather than just heavily weighing the potential delay. The Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
