Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 11, 1971
Decided March 2, 1971
Full case name Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, et al. v. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, et al.
Citations 401 U.S. 402 (more)
91 S. Ct. 814; 28 L. Ed. 2d 136; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 96
Prior history Summary judgment for defendant, injunction denied, 309 F. Supp. 1189 (W.D. Tenn. 1970); aff'd, 432 F.2d 1307 (6th Cir. 1970); certiorari granted, 400 U.S. 939 (1970)
Subsequent history On remand to 335 F. Supp. 873 (W.D. Tenn. 1972)
Holding
The Secretary of Transportation can only approve use of federal funds for construction of a highway in a public park if no (a) feasible and prudent alternative exists, and (b) after undertaking all possible planning to minimize harm.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Marshall, joined by Burger, Harlan, Stewart, White, Blackmun
Concurrence Black, joined by Brennan
Concurrence Blackmun
Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Administrative Procedure Act; Department of Transportation Act § 4(f), codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f); Federal-Aid Highway Act § 138, codified at 23 U.S.C. § 138

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)[1], is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the basic legal framework for judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies. It also stands as a notable example of the power of litigation by grassroots citizen movements to block government action.

Contents

Background

The case concerned the decision by the Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe to construct Interstate 40 through Overton Park in Memphis, Tennessee.

During the interstate highway system's late 1950s and early 1960s building boom, public parks had been viewed as a desirable path. Building through them didn't require the federal government to use the power of eminent domain. That changed in the mid-1960s, under § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, a federal statute commonly called "Section 4(f)." It required the government to demonstrate that there were no "feasible and prudent" alternatives to building through public lands.

Procedural History

After Secretary Volpe approved the Tennessee Department of Highway's proposal to construct the highway through Overton Park, a group called Citizens to Preserve Overton Park brought suit against him in the Western District of Tennessee. They claimed that the Secretary had not complied with §4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. The Secretary responded by filing a summary judgment motion, which was granted by the court. On appeal, the 6th Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.

Decision

On March 3, 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, upholding the "feasible and prudent" clause. The Court held that summary judgment was improperly granted. While the Secretary was not required to make formal findings, the Secretary's sole reliance on litigation affidavits was inadequate. The Secretary's decision did not fall into the Administrative Procedure Act's exception for action "committed to agency discretion."[1]

In the decision, Justice Thurgood Marshall stated that Section 4(f) "is a plain and explicit bar to the use of federal funds for construction of highways through parks; only the most unusual situations are exempted."[2] The court recognized the place of cost, directness of route, and community disruption in highway routing, but the existence of the statute "indicates that protection of parkland was to be given paramount importance."[3]

Concurrence

Justice Black, joined by Justice Brennan, concurred. Black and Brennan would have remanded the case to the Secretary of Transportation, rather than the district court.[4]

See also

References

  1. ^ Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 410-11.
  2. ^ Id. at 411.
  3. ^ Id. at 412-13.
  4. ^ Id. at 421-22.

External links

  • Text of Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) is available from: Justia · Findlaw



Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужна курсовая?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park — (CPOP) is a nonprofit advocacy group founded in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1957. CPOP is best known for its success at preventing the extension of Interstate 40 through Overton Park adjacent to the Memphis Zoo, through the landmark 1971 Supreme Court …   Wikipedia

  • Overton Park — may also refer to the U.S. Supreme Court case, Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe Overton Park Historic District U.S. National Register of Historic Places …   Wikipedia

  • Old Forest Arboretum of Overton Park — U.S. Historic district Contributing property …   Wikipedia

  • Interstate 40 in Tennessee — Interstate 40 Route information Maintained by …   Wikipedia

  • National Register of Historic Places — This article is about the U.S. Register. For the National Register of Historic Places in Canada, see Canadian Register of Historic Places. Old Slater Mill, a historic district in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, was the first property listed in the… …   Wikipedia

  • Interstate 40 — in Arizona.New MexicoI 40 used to have a conventional mileage sign in New Mexico to the east of San Jon (a village to the east of Tucumcari, New Mexico) which probably bore the longest distance on such a sign. The sign showed convert|1007|mi|km… …   Wikipedia

  • NIMBY — An airport is a typical example of a development that can cause a NIMBY reaction: developers may claim economic benefits for the city, while locals may benefit from improved transport links and new jobs but they may oppose it with objections to… …   Wikipedia

  • Code of Federal Regulations — Administrative law General prin …   Wikipedia

  • Mathews v. Eldridge — Supreme Court of the United States Argued October 6, 1975 Decided February 24, 1 …   Wikipedia

  • National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services — Supreme Court of the United States …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”