Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe
- Decided
- March 2, 1971
- Docket
- 1066
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 7,564 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds, abrogated in part on other grounds, abrogated, overruled on other grounds, abrogated in part, overruled in part on other grounds, superseded by statute, overruled in part (not yet verified) · Todicheeney v. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
What later courts said
- holding that review is generally limited to the "record that was before the [agency] at the time [it] made [its] decision” — Rempfer v. Sharfstein (2009)
- holding that "various exceptions to the notice-and-comment provisions of section 553 will be narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced” — United States v. Johnson (2011)
- holding that post-hoc rationalizations cannot justify an agency decision that was based on an otherwise invalid rationale — Thomas E. Walton Le'ellen Walton v. Rose Mobile Homes Llc, Southern Energy Homes, Inc. (2002)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Marshall, announced by Mr. Justice Stewart.
The growing public concern about the quality of our natural environment has prompted Congress in recent years to enact legislation[1] designed to curb the accelerating destruction of our country’s natural beauty. We are concerned in this case with § 4 (f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended,[2] and § 18 (a) of [*405] the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 823, 23 U. S. C. § 138 (1964 ed., Supp. V) (hereafter § 138).[3] These statutes prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from authorizing the use of federal funds to finance the construction of highways through public parks if a “feasible and prudent” [4] alternative route exists. If no such route is available, the statutes allow him to approve construction through parks only if there has been “all possible planning to minimize harm” [5] to the park.
[*406] Petitioners, private citizens as well as local and national conservation organizations, contend that the Secretary has violated these statutes by authorizing the expenditure of federal funds[6] for the construction of a six-lane interstate highway through a public park in Memphis, Tennessee. Their claim was rejected by the District Court,[7] which granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.[8] After oral argument, this Court granted a stay that halted construction and, treating the application for the stay as a petition for certiorari, granted review.[9] 400 U. S. 939. We now reverse the judgment below and remand for further proceedings in the District Court.
Statutes cited
- 23 U.S.C. § 138
- 5 U.S.C. § 701
- 49 U.S.C. § 1653
- 5 U.S.C. § 706
- 5 U.S.C. § 553
- 23 U.S.C. § 128
- 42 U.S.C. § 4321
- 20 U.S.C. § 1531
- 42 U.S.C. § 1857
- 42 U.S.C. § 4371
And 3 more sections cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.