15 U.S.C. § 719h

Judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Exclusiveness of remedy

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the actions of Federal officers or agencies taken pursuant to section 719g of this title, shall not be subject to judicial review except as provided in this section.

(b) Limitations for filing claims(1) Claims alleging the invalidity of this chapter may be brought not later than the 60th day following the date a decision takes effect pursuant to section 719f of this title.(2) Claims alleging that an action will deny rights under the Constitution of the United States, or that an action is in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right may be brought not later than the 60th day following the date of such action, except that if a party shows that he did not know of the action complained of, and a reasonable person acting in the circumstances would not have known, he may bring a claim alleging the invalidity of such action on the grounds stated above not later than the 60th day following the date of his acquiring actual or constructive knowledge of such action.(c) Jurisdiction(1) Special Courts(A) In general

A claim under subsection (b) shall be barred unless a complaint is filed prior to the expiration of such time limits in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia acting as a Special Court.

(B) Exclusive jurisdiction

The Special Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine such proceeding in accordance with the procedures hereinafter provided, and no other court of the United States, or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, shall have jurisdiction of any such claim in any proceeding instituted prior to or on or after October 22, 1976.

(2) Expedited consideration

The Special Court shall set any action brought under this section for expedited consideration, taking into account the national interest described in section 719 of this title.

(3) Environmental impact statements

The enactment of a joint resolution under section 719f of this title approving the decision of the President shall be conclusive as to the legal and factual sufficiency of the environmental impact statements submitted by the President relative to the approved transportation system and no court shall have jurisdiction to consider questions respecting the sufficiency of such statements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.].

(Pub. L. 94–586, § 10, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2913; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(16), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3358; Pub. L. 108–324, div. C, § 107(d), Oct. 13, 2004, 118 Stat. 1261.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§ 4321 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.

Amendments

2004—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 108–324, § 107(d)(1), inserted heading.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 108–324, § 107(d)(1), (2), designated first sentence as subpar. (A) and inserted par. and subpar. headings and designated last sentence as subpar. (B), inserted subpar. heading, and substituted “The Special Court shall have” for “Such court shall have”.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 108–324, § 107(d)(3), added par. (2).

Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 108–324, § 107(d)(4), inserted heading.

1984—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out par. (2) which required that any such proceeding had to be assigned for hearing and completed at the earliest possible date, would, to the greatest extent practicable, take precedence over all other matters pending on the docket of the court at that time, and had to be expedited in every way by such court and such court had to render its decision relative to any claim within 90 days from the date such claim was brought unless such court determined that a longer period of time was required to satisfy requirements of the United States Constitution.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

Enforcement functions authorized by, and supplemental enforcement authority created by this chapter with respect to pre-construction, construction, and initial operation of transportation system for Canadian and Alaskan natural gas transferred to Federal Inspector, Office of Federal Inspector for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, until first anniversary of date of initial operation of Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, see Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1979, §§ 102(h)(1), 203(a), 44 F.R. 33663, 33666, 93 Stat. 1373, 1376, effective July 1, 1979, set out under section 719e of this title. Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System abolished and functions and authority vested in Inspector transferred to Secretary of Energy by section 3012(b) of Pub. L. 102–486, set out as an Abolition of Office of Federal Inspector note under section 719e of this title. Functions and authority vested in Secretary of Energy subsequently transferred to Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects by section 720d(f) of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1978–2020 · leading case: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020). “§§ 1818 (i)(1), 4208 ; 15 U. S. C. § 719h(c)(3) ; 31 U. S. C. § 3730 (e)(4)(A).”

Younger v. Jensen, 605 P.2d 813 (Cal. 1980). · cites it 2× “) The act limits judicial review by requiring challenges to be filed within limited periods in a particular court and by making the environmental impact statements conclusive (15 U.S.C. § 719h); and those limits are reinforced by declarations of urgency and of intent to exercise…”

Metzenbaum v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 675 F.2d 1282 (D.C. Cir. 1982). · cites it 5× “15 U.S.C. § 719h. II. ANALYSIS A. Complainants first argue that Pub.”

Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 589 F.2d 603 (D.C. Cir. 1978). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 719h(a) (1976). . Id. § 719g(a).”

N. Border Pipeline Co. v. JACKSON CTY., ETC., 512 F. Supp. 1261 (D. Minnesota 1981). “” 15 U.S.C. § 719h(c)(3). By ratifying the President’s decision, Congress approved the EIS’s for the pipeline system.”

Matter of Valuation Proceedings, Etc., 531 F. Supp. 1191 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 1982). “§ 1652 (d); Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act, 15 U.S.C. § 719h(c)(3), convince us that a similar exemption would have been provided here, especially since continuation of rail service rather than its abandonment and replacement by trucks and buses was obviously in the…”

Anacostia Watershed Soc'y v. Babbitt, 871 F. Supp. 475 (D.D.C. 1994). “§ 791 (c) (Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973-action before final date of railroad system plan does not require NEPA compliance); 15 U.S.C. § 719h(c)(3) (Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act of 1976 — Alaska Pipeline exempted from NEPA compliance).”

Earth Resources Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 617 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “See 15 U.S.C. § 719h(b)(2) (1976); H.R. Rep.No.”

Hall v. Env't Chem. Corp., 64 F. Supp. 2d 638 (S.D. Tex. 1999). “§ 2278b-4(b) (1994) (granting exclusive jurisdiction to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia over civil actions taken against Board members of the Farm Credit Administration’s Financial Assistance Corporation); 15 U.S.C. § 719h(c)(l) (1994) (extending…”

Iowa State Com. Comm'n v. Off. of the Fed. Inspector of the Alaska Nat. Gas Transp. Sys., 730 F.2d 1566 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 9× “Because we find that our review of the OFI orders is governed by section 10 of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act (ANGTA), 15 U.S.C. § 719h (1982), the scope of that review is severely limited: We may only consider whether the OFI orders denied ISCC’s constitutional…”

— 15 U.S.C. § 719h(a) — 2 cases

Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 589 F.2d 603 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “15 U.S.C. § 719h(a) (1976). . Id. § 719g(a).”

Iowa State Com. Comm'n v. Off. of the Fed. Inspector of the Alaska Nat. Gas Transp. Sys., 730 F.2d 1566 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “Because we find that our review of the OFI orders is governed by section 10 of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act (ANGTA), 15 U.S.C. § 719h (1982), the scope of that review is severely limited: We may only consider whether the OFI orders denied ISCC’s constitutional…”

— 15 U.S.C. § 719h(b)(2) — 4 cases

Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 589 F.2d 603 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “15 U.S.C. § 719h(a) (1976). . Id. § 719g(a).”

Metzenbaum v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 675 F.2d 1282 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “15 U.S.C. § 719h. II. ANALYSIS A. Complainants first argue that Pub.”

Earth Resources Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 617 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “See 15 U.S.C. § 719h(b)(2) (1976); H.R. Rep.No.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 719h(c)(2) — 1 case

— 15 U.S.C. § 719h(c)(3) — 5 cases

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020). “§§ 1818 (i)(1), 4208 ; 15 U. S. C. § 719h(c)(3) ; 31 U. S. C. § 3730 (e)(4)(A).”

Earth Resources Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 617 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “See 15 U.S.C. § 719h(b)(2) (1976); H.R. Rep.No.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 719h(c)(l) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.