Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
| Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued April 18, 1978 Decided June 15, 1978 |
||||||
| Full case name | Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, et al. | |||||
| Citations | 437 U.S. 153 (more) 98 S. Ct. 2279; 57 L. Ed. 2d 117; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 33; 11 ERC (BNA) 1705; 8 ELR 20513 |
|||||
| Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| A permanent injunction was affirmed, thus ceasing construction of the dam. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Burger, joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Stevens | |||||
| Dissent | Powell, joined by Blackmun | |||||
| Dissent | Rehnquist | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| Endangered Species Act | ||||||
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill et al., or TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case. It is a commonly cited example of the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others).
Contents |
[edit] Background
The Tennessee Valley Authority started the building of the Tellico Dam in 1967[1] on the Little Tennessee River and was constructing the dam when an endangered fish species, the snail darter, was found upstream. The Endangered Species Act was passed by Congress in 1973 after construction of the dam had begun. If the dam project was completed, the resulting reservoir would flood the snail darter's river habitat - causing considerable harm to the fish.
[edit] Case
The Supreme Court affirmed a court of appeals' judgment, which agreed with the Secretary of Interior that operation of the federal Tellico Dam would eradicate an endangered species. The Court held that a prima facie violation of § 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536, occurred, and ruled that an injunction requested by respondents should have been issued.
The Court held that pursuant to the Act's explicit provisions, the survival of the snail darter population required the permanent halting of the dam project. The Court noted that Congress intended endangered species to be afforded the highest of priorities and to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction because the value of endangered species was "incalculable."
The Court further held that the continuing appropriations for the dam did not constitute an implied repeal of the Act (at least insofar as it applied to the dam project). The Court ruled that an injunction was the appropriate remedy because of "institutionalized caution" and the separation of powers.
[edit] Issues
The questions presented in this case are (a) whether the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires a court to enjoin the operation of a virtually completed federal dam, which had been authorized prior to 1973 when, pursuant to authority vested in him by Congress, the Secretary of the Interior has determined that operation of the dam would eradicate an endangered species; and (b) whether continued congressional appropriations for the dam after 1973 constituted an implied repeal of the Endangered Species Act, at least as to the particular dam.
[edit] Decision
The judgment finding that petitioner corporation's operation of a dam would eradicate an endangered species, and that an injunction was the appropriate remedy, was affirmed because endangered species were afforded the highest priorities, and continuing appropriations did not constitute an implied repeal of the statute as it applied to the project.
"After this case was decided, Congress made significant amendments to the ESA and there is now a provision for granting exemptions. Two years after this case was decided, Congressional proponents pushed through an appropriations rider that expressly authorized completion of the dam notwithstanding the provisions of the ESA. The dam was completed, and the darters died out soon after. The good news is that small populations of snail darters have been found in other rivers."[2]
