NEPA Case Summary

This case was chosen because defining the word “significance” is of great importance under NEPA. This was a successive lawsuit between Hanley and Kleindienst. In Hanly 1, the court upheld that the General Services administration was complying not writing an Environmental Assessment for an office building, but that it was in violation of compliance in regards to the jail building. The plaintiff claimed in Hanly 2, that the assessment of the EIS amounted to “nothing more than a rewrite of the earlier statement that had been found inadequate, and that some of its findings were incorrect or insufficient” (Bass, et al).
The court reconfirmed that it approved the outcome of Hanly 1. Moreover, The Court stated that (1) “Agencies in doubtful cases