Norvergence Foundation INC Judgment

Norvergence Foundation INC Judgment on Various Environmental Cases

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.

Norvergence Judgment: expert scientists and the experts at Norvergence Foundation INC have shown their concern on the degrading quality of water on the coast of Massachusetts. The EPA claimed that the Clean Air Act does not give the authority to monitor greenhouse gas emissions. However, steps can be taken to regulate this.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

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.

Norvergence Foundation INC Judgment: According to the highly experienced professionals at Norvergence , the Sierra Club needs to furnish evidence of stake in the Mineral King Valley to claim any suing rights.

Sierra Club v. Morton

Violation of Environmental Rules in your Locality

Case 3: Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

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.

Norvergence Judgment: After critically studying each and every aspect of the case, the  Norvergence Foundation INC team suggests that keeping the critical habitat of an endangered species (snail darter fish) at stake and constructing a dam that will destroy this habitat should not be done. Every step should be taken within the jurisdictional bounds.

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.

Norvergence Judgment: According to the environmentalists at Norvergence, the arguments raised by both parties cannot be ignored. While the point that the 21 students who filed for the case against the United States is valid, the states also put forth some critical evidence and facts. The main goal should be towards sustainable growth. Thus, measures should be undertaken to promote this.

Juliana v. the United States

Case 5: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 1

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 Foundation INC 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. 

Publish your Story Regarding any Environment Case