Strycker Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc v. Karlen City of New York v. Karlen Secretary of Housing and Urban Development v. Karlen 79 184, Nos. 79-168

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; MARSHALL
Citation444 U.S. 223,62 L.Ed.2d 433,100 S.Ct. 497
Decision Date07 January 1980
Docket Number79-181,Nos. 79-168
PartiesSTRYCKER'S BAY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, INC. v. Roland N. KARLEN et al. CITY OF NEW YORK v. Roland N. KARLEN et al. SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT v. Roland N. KARLEN et al. , and 79-184

444 U.S. 223
100 S.Ct. 497
62 L.Ed.2d 433
STRYCKER'S BAY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL, INC.

v.

Roland N. KARLEN et al. CITY OF NEW YORK v. Roland N. KARLEN et al. SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT v. Roland N. KARLEN et al.

Nos. 79-168, 79-181, and 79-184.
Jan. 7, 1980.

PER CURIAM.

The protracted nature of this litigation is perhaps best illustrated by the identity of the original federal defendant, "George Romney, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development." At the center of this dispute is the site of a proposed low-income housing project to be constructed on Manhattan's Upper West Side. In 1962, the New York City Planning Commission (Commission), acting in conjunction with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), began formulating a

Page 224

plan for the renewal of 20 square blocks known as the "West Side Urban Renewal Area" (WSURA) through a joint effort on the part of private parties and various government agencies. As originally written, the plan called for a mix of 70% middle-income housing and 30% low-income housing and designated the site at issue here as the location of one of the middle-income projects. In 1969, after substantial progress toward completion of the plan, local agencies in New York determined that the number of low-income units proposed for WSURA would be insufficient to satisfy an increased need for such units. In response to this shortage the Commission amended the plan to designate the site as the future location of a high-rise building containing 160 units of low-income housing. HUD approved this amendment in December 1972.

Meanwhile, in October 1971, the Trinity Episcopal School Corp. (Trinity), which had participated in the plan by building a combination school and middle-income housing development at a nearby location, sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to enjoin the Commission and HUD from constructing low-income housing on the site. The present respondents, Roland N. Karlen, Alvin C. Hudgins, and the Committee of Neighbors To Insure a Normal Urban Environment (CONTINUE), intervened as plaintiffs, while petitioner Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc., intervened as a defendant.

The District Court entered judgment in favor of petitioners. See Trinity Episcopal School Corp. v. Romney, 387 F.Supp. 1044 (1974). It concluded, inter alia, that petitioners had not violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.

On respondents' appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed all but the District Court's treatment of the NEPA claim. See Trinity Episcopal School Corp. v. Romney, 523 F.2d 88

Page 225

(1975). While the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that HUD was not required to prepare a full-scale environmental impact statement under § 102(2)(C) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), it held that HUD had not complied with § 102(2)(E),1 which requires an agency to "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E). See 523 F.2d., at 92-95. According to the Court of Appeals, any consideration by HUD of alternatives to placing low-income housing on the site "was either highly limited or nonexistent." Id., at 94. Citing the "background of urban environmental factors" behind HUD's decision, the Court of Appeals remanded the case, requiring HUD to prepare a "statement of possible alternatives, the consequences thereof and the facts and reasons for and against . . . ." Ibid. The statement was not to reflect "HUD's concept or the Housing Authority's views as to how these agencies would choose to resolve the city's low income group housing situation," but rather was to explain "how within the framework of the Plan its objective of economic integration can best be achieved with a minimum of adverse environmental impact." Ibid. The Court of Appeals believed that, given such an assessment of alternatives, "the agencies with the cooperation of the interested parties should be able to arrive at an equitable solution." Id., at 95.

On remand, HUD prepared a lengthy report entitled Special Environmental Clearance (1977). After marshaling the data, the report asserted that, "while the choice of Site 30 for development as a 100 percent low-income project has raised

Page 226

valid questions about the potential social environmental impacts involved, the problems associated with the impact on social fabric and community structures are not considered so serious as to require that this component be rated as unacceptable." Special Environmental Clearance Report 42. The last portion of the report incorporated a study wherein the Commission evaluated nine alternative locations for the project and found none of them acceptable. While HUD's report conceded that this study may not have considered all possible alternatives, it credited the Commission's conclusion that any relocation of the units would entail an unacceptable delay of two years or more. According to HUD, "[m]easured against the environmental costs associated with the minimum two-year delay, the benefits seem insufficient to justify a mandated substitution of sites." Id., at 54.

After soliciting the parties' comments on HUD's report, the District Court again entered judgment in favor of petitioners. See Trinity Episcopal School Corp. v. Harris, 445 F.Supp. 204 (1978). The court was "impressed with [HUD's analysis] as being thorough and exhaustive," id., at 209-210, and found that "HUD's consideration of the alternatives was neither arbitrary nor capricious"; on the contrary, "[i]t was done in good faith and in full accordance with the law." Id., at 220.

On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded again. Karlen v. Harris, 590 F.2d 39 (1978). The appellate court focused upon that part of HUD's report where the agency considered and rejected alternative sites, and in particular upon HUD's reliance on the delay such a relocation would entail. The Court of Appeals purported to recognize that its role in reviewing HUD's decision was defined by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), which provides that agency actions should be set aside if found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
256 practice notes
  • OKL. WILDLIFE FEDERATION v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENG., No. 87-C-237-B.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Northern District of Oklahoma
    • January 5, 1988
    ...itself within the area of discretion ... as to the choice of the action to be taken." Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227-28, 100 S.Ct. 497, 499-500, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980), quoting in part, Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 2730......
  • Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Marsh, Civ. No. 85-6433-BU
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • February 10, 1994
    ...Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 558, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1219, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978); Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227, 100 S.Ct. 497, 499-500, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980). These procedural duties are implemented by regulations promulgated by the Council on E......
  • Oceana Inc. v. Locke ., Civil Action No. 08-318(ESH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 23, 2010
    ...of the executive as to the choice of the action to be taken.’ ” 725 F.Supp.2d 54 Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227-28, 100 S.Ct. 497, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980) (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) (“Ne......
  • South East Lake View Neighbors v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, No. 81-2104
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 28, 1982
    ...however, did not confer a right on individuals to be free of environmental damage. Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227, 100 S.Ct. 497, 499, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980). Affected residents have only a procedural right to have their interests considered in the age......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
249 cases
  • OKL. WILDLIFE FEDERATION v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENG., No. 87-C-237-B.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Northern District of Oklahoma
    • January 5, 1988
    ...itself within the area of discretion ... as to the choice of the action to be taken." Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227-28, 100 S.Ct. 497, 499-500, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980), quoting in part, Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 2730......
  • Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Marsh, Civ. No. 85-6433-BU
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
    • February 10, 1994
    ...Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 558, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1219, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978); Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227, 100 S.Ct. 497, 499-500, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980). These procedural duties are implemented by regulations promulgated by the Council on E......
  • Oceana Inc. v. Locke ., Civil Action No. 08-318(ESH).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 23, 2010
    ...of the executive as to the choice of the action to be taken.’ ” 725 F.Supp.2d 54 Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227-28, 100 S.Ct. 497, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980) (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n. 21, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) (“Ne......
  • South East Lake View Neighbors v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, No. 81-2104
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 28, 1982
    ...however, did not confer a right on individuals to be free of environmental damage. Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227, 100 S.Ct. 497, 499, 62 L.Ed.2d 433 (1980). Affected residents have only a procedural right to have their interests considered in the age......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Arbitrary and Capricious: the Dark Canon of the United States Supreme Court in Environmental Law
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review Nbr. 33-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...opinion “surely is ‘judicial intervention run riot’”). 77. Id. 78. Id. at 558. 79. Stryker’s Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223 (1980). 80. Id. at 224 (Marshall, J., dissenting). 81. Karlen v. Harris, 590 F.2d 39, 43 (2d. Cir. 1978). 82. Id. at 41 (noting that the Plan’s......
  • The Maryland Environmental Policy Act: Resurrecting a Tool for Environmental Protection
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 45-1, January 2015
    • January 1, 2015
    ...(1978) (citations omitted). See also Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. , 462 U.S. at 98; Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227, 10 ELR 20079 (1980). 53. Vermont Yankee , 435 U.S. at 558. 54. Id . 55. Id. Wright predicted, “hese cases are only the beginning of what p......
  • Administering the National Environmental Policy Act
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 45-4, April 2015
    • April 1, 2015
    ...undesirable consequences for the environment.” 38 Fed. Reg. at 20550. 131. See e.g. , Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227-28, 10 ELR 20079 (1980); Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens’ Copyright © 2015 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with ......
  • The Interface Between the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Freedom of Information Act
    • United States
    • Endangered species deskbook
    • April 22, 2010
    ...Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519, 8 ELR 20288 (1978); Stryker’s Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 10 ELR 20079 (1980); Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347, 9 ELR 20390 (1979); Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 462 U.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT