Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
2004 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004), was a Supreme Court case that held that although the Administrative Procedure Act says that a person may challenge an agency's failure to act, this provision essentially just carries forward the writ of mandamus. Thus an agency cannot be compelled to act unless there is some non-discretionary, discrete act. Therefore, in this case, an interest group could not challenge an agency's failure to "act so as to preserve the wilderness" in accordance with the statute.
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (December 2013) |
Quick Facts Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, Argued March 29, 2004 Decided June 14, 2004 ...
Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance | |
---|---|
Argued March 29, 2004 Decided June 14, 2004 | |
Full case name | Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance et al. |
Docket no. | 03-101 |
Citations | 542 U.S. 55 (more) 124 S. Ct. 2373; 159 L. Ed. 2d 137 |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
Administrative Procedure Act 702, 704, 706. |
Close