Active forum topicsNavigation |
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Public’s Ability to Participate in National Forest Decisions and Challenge Unlawful RegulationsFor Immediate Release, September 29, 2008 Contacts: Matt Kenna, Western Environmental Law Center, kenna@westernlaw.org (970) 385-6941 Supreme Court to Hear Case on Public’s Ability to Participate in National Forest Decisions and Challenge Unlawful Regulations WASHINGTON D.C. — A case that started out as an important challenge to the Bush administration’s weakening of the public’s ability to provide input on national forest decisions has become a far-reaching case to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on October 8th. The case began when conservation groups successfully challenged federal regulations issued in 2003 that eliminated the public’s ability to comment on and appeal Forest Service actions such as timber sales, oil and gas development and off-road motorized vehicle use. The agency then asked the Supreme Court to review the case to clarify whether citizens can challenge government rules and have those rules retracted, if found to be illegal; or whether the agency can continue using rules after found to be unlawful, except when a member of the public with an attorney brings suit. “The government knows that the public interest community’s resources are limited, and that would allow unlawful government action — whether it’s a timber sale or deprivation of personal rights —to go unchecked in most instances,” says Matt Kenna, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. Mr. Kenna will be presenting the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of Heartwood, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Sequoia Forest Keeper and Earth Island Institute, along with attorney Scott Nelson of Public Citizen. The case is called Summers v. Earth Island Institute. Business, academic, and local governments and communities have filed amicus briefs siding with conservation groups. The timber and building industries have filed amicus briefs siding with the government, asserting that business should be permitted to challenge government rules and public-interest groups should not. “Obviously, that is a nonsensical and self-serving position,” said Jim Bensman of Heartwood. “This case is primarily about whether or not the public has a right to be involved in the most important decisions that affect our public lands,” stated Jim Bensman. “The number one priority for the Bush administration has been to reduce public accountability, and this has been especially true when it comes to logging on our national forests.” This is the same case in which the Forest Service tried to create a backlash against an earlier ruling by claiming it required delays for such activities as harvesting nuts, issuing outfitter permits and even cutting the Capitol Christmas Tree. As noted in a 2005 Washington Post editorial, after the judge made clear that the Forest Service was again acting illegally, this case “should lead to more questions about the real motives of the agency that allegedly protects the nation’s forests.” “This case is the latest attempt by the Bush administration to limit public involvement and close the courthouse door to those harmed by bad Forest Service decisions,” said Marc Fink, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. Heartwood is a regional nonprofit conservation organization and cooperative network of grassroots groups, individuals and local businesses working to protect and sustain healthy forests and vital human communities in the Eastern, Southern and Midwestern United States.
|