Дело TVA против Хилла: Защита вымирающих видов и строительство плотин в США.

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hiram Hill et al., or TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case and the Court's first interpretation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. After the discovery of the snail darter fish in the Little Tennessee River in August 1973, a lawsuit was filed alleging that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)'s Tellico Dam construction was in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs argued dam construction would destroy critical habitat and endanger the population of snail darters. It was decided by a 6 3 vote, in which the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hill, et al. and granted an injunction stating that there would be conflict between Tellico Dam operation and the explicit provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, affirmed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in granting an injunction. This decision by the Supreme Court to not allow exemptions confirmed that Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was a strong substantive provision and helped shape federal environmental law. The case is commonly cited as an example of the strict construction plain meaning canon of construction, and the equitable principle that courts cannot balance equities to override statutory mandates unless on constitutional grounds.

Passed by Congress a large majority in 531 4 vote and signed by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973 with the purpose of protecting and recovering "imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend," the Endangered Species Act provides the strongest federal protection against species loss. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to evaluate if actions taken or permitted by the federal government may harm listed species or the continued existence of listed species or their critical habitat. Once a species is listed as "endangered" or "threatened," the ESA prohibits the "taking" of listed animals and plants which makes it unlawful "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Unknowingly at the time, Congress had passed a controversial statute that created a forum which brought into question the merits of government projects and presented a political question of balancing the benefits of species preservation and the economic cost of preservation.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is a federally owned utility corporation created in 1933 during the Great Depression. At the time of its creation, its mission was to help strengthen economic development of the Tennessee River basin, a region hit with high unemployment where the per capita income was less than half the national average. The publicly owned corporation provides flood control, navigation and land management for the Tennessee River system and assists utilities and state and local governments with economic development. The Tellico Dam project would be the last of 68 dams constructed in the Tennessee River Valley. TVA argued that the project would provide recreational benefits and allow for real estate development along the reservoir.

CaseIssueHoldingWashington Toxics Coalition v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004 The environmental organization, WTC, argued use of 54 pesticides with active ingredients may harm endangered or threatened salmon and steelhead in the waters of the Pacific Northwest. WTC filed suit against the EPA to force consulting compliance under the ESA District court upheld an injunction banning the use of the 54 pesticides within the proscribed distance of waters supporting salmon populations in California, Oregon, and Washington. Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., 2009 Under the Clean Water Act facilities are regulated to use the "Best Available Technology" to reduce adverse impacts to the environment. The case determined whether agencies may use cost benefit analysis when choosing a technology to meet performance standards. The Court determined the EPA was allowed to use cost benefit analysis when determining BAT standards. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 1995 Sweet Home Chapter brought suit against the Secretary of Interior and the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service challenging the interpretation of the term "take" in the Endangered Species Act. The plaintiff argued that the interpretation of "harm" under "takings" was too broad and any commercial business would indirectly impact habitat and species. The Court ruled in favor of the Department of Interior finding "that Congress intended an expansive interpretation that encompasses habitat modification."