Category : Litigation(34)
-
2025-09-12Legal Services Agreement Regarding Issues Regarding Port of Seattle’s Sustainable Airport Master Plan (SAMP)
★Legal engagement letter from Leech Tishman Nelson Hardiman to the City of SeaTac for representation regarding the Port of Seattle’s Sustainable Airport Master Plan FONSI/ROD review and potential petition for review. The agreement outlines a $300,000 budget with $10,000 initial retainer and hourly billing rates. -
2002-06-03Legal Analysis of King County’s Role in Des Moines Beach Park Conveyor Belt Proposal
★Legal counsel James L. Brewer analyzes King County’s jurisdictional authority regarding a proposed fill material conveyor belt operation at Des Moines Beach Park. The memo examines property interests, covenants requiring park use only, and concludes the proposed 30-month project would be inconsistent with park purposes due to significant disruption. -
2002-06-03Des Moines Beach Park Legal Analysis and Department of Ecology Letter on Third Runway Fill Material
★Legal memorandum analyzing King County’s role in proposed Des Moines Beach Park conveyor belt operation, including property rights and park use restrictions. Includes Department of Ecology letter clarifying fill material certification requirements for Port of Seattle’s third runway construction. -
2000-02-25Letter to U.S. Senators Gorton and Murray Regarding Sea-Tac Airport Safety Issues
★RCAA requests federal investigation of aviation safety issues at Sea-Tac Airport following KIRO-TV expose revealing hundreds of unreported near misses and close incursions. Letter calls for moratorium on airport expansion permits until safety investigation is completed. -
1996-03-27Final Decision on Noise Issues – Expert Arbitration Panel’s Review of Noise and Demand/System Management Issues at Sea-Tac International Airport
★This is the final decision by the Expert Arbitration Panel on Noise and Demand/System Management Issues regarding Sea-Tac International Airport. The majority of the panel concluded that while the Port of Seattle has implemented noise abatement and mitigation programs, they have not shown sufficient reduction in real on-the-ground noise impacts to satisfy the requirements of -
1996-03-27
Final Decision on Noise Issues – Expert Arbitration Panel’s Review of Sea-Tac International Airport
★Expert Arbitration Panel’s final decision finding that the Port of Seattle had not shown sufficient reduction in real on-the-ground noise impacts to satisfy noise reduction conditions required for approval of a third runway at Sea-Tac International Airport. The majority decision concluded the Port’s noise abatement programs were insufficient despite being impressive in scope. -
City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal
★ 32In one of the most maddening examples of airport law, the United States argued for reversal (ie. allowing for local airport control) of curfews. The FAA, which had previously supported the ban, adopted a neutral position when the The Department of Transportation, filed a Friend of the Court brief arguing for reversal. Summary Holding that -
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Cracks Down on FAA Compliance with NEPA
Article discusses a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that addresses FAA compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court appears to have made rulings that strengthen environmental review requirements for aviation projects. -
2025-05-30U.S. Supreme Court Narrows NEPA Review
Court removes “indirect effects” requirement The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, on May 29, 2025, narrowing the scope of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Court reversed in part the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ finding that the Surface Transportation -
2024-11-27
CEQ’s Wings Clipped: D.C. Circuit Invalidates CEQ’s Binding Regulations
In a significant ruling, the D.C. Circuit in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration held that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) lacks the statutory authority to issue binding regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).1 The decision calls into question the legal basis for key aspects of NEPA compliance, including the use