Question: Builder wants to develop 1,000 acres in rural Montana, land that is home to the...

Transcribed Image Text:

Question: Builder wants to develop 1,000 acres in rural Montana, land that is home to the Kite Owl. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules that the Kite Owl is an endangered species, and prohibits development of the property. The developer appeals to court. The EPA based its decision on five statistical studies, and the opinions of three out of seven experts. The court looks at the same evidence and acknowledges that the EPA decision is carefully reasoned and fair. However, the judges believe that the other four experts were right: the owl is not endangered. Should the court permit development? Strategy: What is the legal standard for deciding whether a court should affirm or reverse an agency decision? As long as there is substantial evidence to support the factual conclusions, and a reasonable basis for the legal conclusion, the court should not impose its judgment. Agencies are presumed to have special expertise in their areas. As the Fox Television case tells us, an agency ruling should generally be affirmed unless it is arbitrary and capricious. Apply that standard here. Result: The EPA made a careful, reasoned decision. The court may disagree, but it should not impose its views. The court must affirm the agency's ruling and prohibit development.