Norvergence Judgment on various Environmental Cases
                     
Norvergence 
Judgment
Case 1: Massachusetts v. 
Environmental  Protection 
Agency
Hit by the ever-increasing issue of global warming, the
Coast of Massachusetts has been given a red-signal  
and declared in-danger. In an attempt to safeguard and 
 protect the land on the coast, the state of  
Massachusetts has filed a petition with the  
Environment Protection Agency. The agenda of the  
petition is to regulate vehicular gas emissions and  
protect the environment.
There are a lot of pieces of evidence and examples
that tell about the existence of greenhouse gases that 
 result in the escalation of global warming. This has  
degraded the quality of water on the coast of  
Massachusetts.
The request was denied by the EPA which has led the 
 State of Massachusetts to sue the agency for not  
initiating the Clean AirAct.
Case 2: Sierra Club v. 
Morton
In the 1920s, The Mineral King Valley, an
underdeveloped location in the Sequoia 
National  Forest, started to get multiple bids on 
the land as it  was purely used for mining 
purposes.
The bids were being placed as an attempt to  
convert the land and use it for recreational  
development.
The renowned Walt Disney Enterprises also 
placed
a bid, ultimately winning it.
The purpose was to create a massive ski resort  
spread over a sprawling 80 acres of land.
Keeping a track of every minute activity, the 
Sierra  Club filed a petition to stop the 
exploitation of the  underdeveloped land.
Case 3: Tennessee Valley 
Authority v.
Hill
The Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill case took
place in the year 1978. The case was the first  
interpretation of the Endangered Species Act 
(1973)  held by the United States Supreme 
Court. The basis  of the case was to protect 
endangered species.
After the snail darter fish was discovered in the  
Little Tennessee River, a case was filed against 
the  Tellico Dam construction violating ESA.
The main argument here was that the 
construction of
the dam would take a toll on the natural habitat 
of  the region. Since the approval for construction 
was  already granted, approximately 78 million 
dollars  worth of investment was already 
received.
Also, being the critical habitat of the snail darter 
fish,  the plaintiff argued and filed a suit for the  
enforcement of the ESA.
Case 4: Juliana v. the United 
States
Juliana v. the United States was a lawsuit filed 
by
the youth asserting that the government’s  
affirmative actions have led to drastic  
environmental changes.
Because of this, the constitutional rights of the  
youngster’s have suffered.
The constitutional rights included the right to
freedom, life, liberty, property, etc.
It argued that the country has failed to 
conserve  and protect natural resources. 
Youngsters and  the plaintiff filed for a claim 
against the federal  government stating that 
the fifth amendment  was infringed.
Tracking the most recent developments, the
council that administers the youth plaintiff will 
 now take further steps and will request that 
the  ninth circuit to review this decision again.
Case 5: Lujan v. Defenders of 
Wildlife
The case took place in the year 1992 and
questioned the challenges and issues raised by 
a  group of the American Wildlife Conservation 
and  many other organizations that work in 
support of  environmental protection.
The group challenged the regulations issued 
with  respect to the U.S. secretaries pertaining 
to  interiors and commerce.
The foundation of the case was the excessive 
U.S.
funding for numerous development projects in  
locations such as Mahaweli, Egypt, Sri Lanka, 
and  Aswan.
The government claims that the act was only  
applicable to projects within the geographical  
bounds of the country, not outside.
Norvergence Judgment: Under Article III of the
constitution, it was found that the respondents lacked  
potential to argue.
There was no critical evidence to support the facts and  
the issues that were raised. Since there was not enough  
evidence to state the redressability and causation of  
respondents’ suffering, the petitioner’s activity for  
judgment should have been approved.
Norvergen
ce