16 U.S.C. § 6516

Judicial review in United States district courts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Venue

Notwithstanding section 1391 of title 28 or other applicable law, an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project conducted under this subchapter shall be subject to judicial review only in the United States district court for a district in which the Federal land to be treated under the authorized hazardous fuels reduction project is located.

(b) Expeditious completion of judicial review

In the judicial review of an action challenging an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project under subsection (a), Congress encourages a court of competent jurisdiction to expedite, to the maximum extent practicable, the proceedings in the action with the goal of rendering a final determination on jurisdiction, and (if jurisdiction exists) a final determination on the merits, as soon as practicable after the date on which a complaint or appeal is filed to initiate the action.

Subject to paragraph (2), the length of any preliminary injunctive relief and stays pending appeal covering an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project carried out under this subchapter shall not exceed 60 days.

(2) Renewal(A) In general

A court of competent jurisdiction may issue 1 or more renewals of any preliminary injunction, or stay pending appeal, granted under paragraph (1).

(B) Updates

In each renewal of an injunction in an action, the parties to the action shall present the court with updated information on the status of the authorized hazardous fuel reduction project.

(3) Balancing of short- and long-term effectsAs part of its weighing the equities while considering any request for an injunction that applies to an agency action under an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project, the court reviewing the project shall balance the impact to the ecosystem likely affected by the project of—(A) the short- and long-term effects of undertaking the agency action; against(B) the short- and long-term effects of not undertaking the agency action.(Pub. L. 108–148, title I, § 106, Dec. 3, 2003, 117 Stat. 1900.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2006–2006 · leading case: Wildwest Inst. v. Bull, 472 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wildwest Inst. v. Bull, 472 F.3d 587 (9th Cir. 2006). “16 U.S.C. § 6516 (c)(3). The court further noted that the plaintiffs’ arguments were “asserted with little citation to either scientific evidence or case law.”

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.