Wilderness Watch v. Mainella

Citation375 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2004)

Brief Fact Summary.

Wilderness Watch sued the National Park Service (NPS) when the NPS continued to use motor vehicles on Cumberland Island after the island was classified as wilderness.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

An agency’s interpretation of a statute will not be upheld if the agency’s interpretation of the statute conflicts with the intent of the statute.

The Wilderness Act prevents motor vehicles from driving on federal land that have been classified as wilderness. Motor vehicles are only allowed on federal land classified as wilderness to enforce the Wilderness Act. Wilderness Watch sued the National Park Service (NPS) when the NPS continued to use motor vehicles on Cumberland Island after the island was classified as wilderness.Wilderness Watch sued the National Park Service (NPS) when the NPS continued to use motor vehicles on Cumberland Island after the island was classified as wilderness. The trial court granted summary judgment to the park service.

Issue.

Will an agency’s interpretation of a statute be upheld if the agency’s interpretation of the statute conflicts with the intent of the statute?

Held.

No. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The use of the van by NPS is prohibited because it was being used for transportation, not administration; the motor vehicle in this instance was a passenger van being used to transport people.

Points of Law - for Law School Success

NEPA does not mandate particular results, but simply provides the necessary process to ensure that federal agencies take a hard look at the environmental consequences of their actions.

View Full Point of Law

An agency’s interpretation of a statute will not be upheld if the agency’s interpretation of the statute conflicts with the intent of the statute. The Wilderness Act bars use of motor vehicles except for the administration of the Wilderness Act.