Issue: (1) Whether respondent Pacific Rivers Council (PRC) has Article III standing to challenge the Forest Service’s 2004 programmatic amendments to the forest plans governing management of 11 Sierra Nevada Forests when PRC failed to establish that any of its members was imminently threatened with cognizable harm because he or she would come into contact with any parcel of forest affected by the amendments; (2) whether PRC’s challenge to the Forest Service’s programmatic amendments is ripe when PRC failed to identify any site-specific project authorized under the amended plan provisions to which PRC objects; and (3) whether the National Environmental Policy Act required the Forest Service, when adopting the programmatic amendments, to analyze every type of environmental effect that any project ultimately authorized under the amendments throughout the 11 affected forests might have if it was reasonably possible to do so when the programmatic amendments were adopted, even though any future site-specific project would require its own appropriate environmental analysis before going forward.
Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Public Lands Council, and National Cattlemen's Beef Association GRANTED.
Mar 18 2013
Apr 12 2013
The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 12, 2013.
Apr 12 2013
The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 23, 2013.
Apr 26 2013
Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Pacific Rivers Council.
May 9 2013
Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent California Forestry Association, and American Forest & Paper Association.
In an unanimous decision, the Court held that a soybean farmer cannot reproduce agri-giant Monsanto’s patented, genetically modified seeds through planting and harvesting without the company’s permission. Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal joins Jeffrey Brown to discuss the legal, agricultural, and technological implications of this decision.
On Thursday the Justices will meet for their May 16 Conference. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference is available here.
Bloomberg Law and SCOTUSblog’s Supreme Court Challenge
Current Standings - Top 5 Teams
1. AU LegalEagles
American University Law School
1. Pitt Law 1L
University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Seton Hall University School of Law
4. Bills of Safeguard
Rutgers School of Law-Newark
Click here to learn more