https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nat%27l_Ass%27n_of_Home_Builders_v._Defenders_of_Wildlife&feed=atom&action=historyNat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife - Revision history2024-03-19T11:13:42ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.24.2https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nat%27l_Ass%27n_of_Home_Builders_v._Defenders_of_Wildlife&diff=1258552&oldid=prevDavidB4-bot: /* top */clean up & uniformity2016-07-13T16:26:30Z<p><span dir="auto"><span class="autocomment">top: </span>clean up & uniformity</span></p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr style='vertical-align: top;'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 16:26, July 13, 2016</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 5:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 5:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides that a federal agency must consult with agencies designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior in order to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species."  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides that a federal agency must consult with agencies designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior in order to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species."  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The Court ruled against [[environmentalists]] and held that § 7(a)(2) does not add a tenth criterion on which the transfer of permitting power under the first statute must be conditioned.  Instead, the Court held that the transfer of permitting authority to state <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">authorities -- who </del>will exercise that authority under continuing federal oversight to ensure compliance with relevant mandates of the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental protection <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">statutes -- was </del>proper.  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>The Court ruled against [[environmentalists]] and held that § 7(a)(2) does not add a tenth criterion on which the transfer of permitting power under the first statute must be conditioned.  Instead, the Court held that the transfer of permitting authority to state <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">authorities—who </ins>will exercise that authority under continuing federal oversight to ensure compliance with relevant mandates of the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental protection <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">statutes—was </ins>proper.  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>This 5-4 decision, written by Justice [[Sam Alito]] and joined by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]], reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Ninth Circuit]].  The [[liberal]] wing of the Court dissented.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>This 5-4 decision, written by Justice [[Sam Alito]] and joined by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]], reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Ninth Circuit]].  The [[liberal]] wing of the Court dissented.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[<del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">category</del>:United States Supreme Court Cases]]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">Category</ins>:United States Supreme Court Cases]]</div></td></tr>
</table>DavidB4-bothttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nat%27l_Ass%27n_of_Home_Builders_v._Defenders_of_Wildlife&diff=446489&oldid=prevNathanG: bold2008-05-04T16:25:56Z<p>bold</p>
<table class='diff diff-contentalign-left'>
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<col class='diff-marker' />
<col class='diff-content' />
<tr style='vertical-align: top;'>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan='2' style="background-color: white; color:black; text-align: center;">Revision as of 16:25, May 4, 2008</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 1:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'>−</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In ''Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife'', 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] considered the interplay between two federal environmental statutes:</div></td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>In <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>''Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife<ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline">'''</ins>'', 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] considered the interplay between two federal environmental statutes:</div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, which requires that the Environmental Protection Agency transfer certain permitting powers to state authorities upon an application and a showing that nine specified criteria have been met.  </div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>*Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, which requires that the Environmental Protection Agency transfer certain permitting powers to state authorities upon an application and a showing that nine specified criteria have been met.  </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 8:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 8:</td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>This 5-4 decision, written by Justice [[Sam Alito]] and joined by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]], reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Ninth Circuit]].  The [[liberal]] wing of the Court dissented.</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>This 5-4 decision, written by Justice [[Sam Alito]] and joined by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]], reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Ninth Circuit]].  The [[liberal]] wing of the Court dissented.</div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td class='diff-marker'>+</td><td style="color:black; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;"></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]</div></td><td class='diff-marker'> </td><td style="background-color: #f9f9f9; color: #333333; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #e6e6e6; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div>[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]</div></td></tr>
</table>NathanGhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nat%27l_Ass%27n_of_Home_Builders_v._Defenders_of_Wildlife&diff=284559&oldid=prevAschlafly: New page: In ''Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife'', 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court considered the interplay between two federal environmental statutes: *Sect...2007-09-02T01:00:27Z<p>New page: In ''Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife'', 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007), the <a href="/U.S._Supreme_Court" class="mw-redirect" title="U.S. Supreme Court">U.S. Supreme Court</a> considered the interplay between two federal environmental statutes: *Sect...</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>In ''Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife'', 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] considered the interplay between two federal environmental statutes:<br />
<br />
*Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, which requires that the Environmental Protection Agency transfer certain permitting powers to state authorities upon an application and a showing that nine specified criteria have been met. <br />
<br />
*Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 provides that a federal agency must consult with agencies designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior in order to "insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species." <br />
<br />
The Court ruled against [[environmentalists]] and held that § 7(a)(2) does not add a tenth criterion on which the transfer of permitting power under the first statute must be conditioned. Instead, the Court held that the transfer of permitting authority to state authorities -- who will exercise that authority under continuing federal oversight to ensure compliance with relevant mandates of the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental protection statutes -- was proper. <br />
<br />
This 5-4 decision, written by Justice [[Sam Alito]] and joined by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]], reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the [[Ninth Circuit]]. The [[liberal]] wing of the Court dissented.<br />
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]</div>Aschlafly