Connection lost
Server error
Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A citizens’ group challenged the FAA’s approval of an airport expansion. The court upheld the FAA’s environmental review, ruling that an agency can reasonably define a project’s purpose based on the applicant’s goals, thereby limiting the range of alternatives it must consider under NEPA.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that under NEPA, an agency has substantial discretion to define a project’s purpose. This definition, which can incorporate an applicant’s specific, localized goals, properly limits the scope of “reasonable alternatives” the agency must analyze in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, seeking to boost the local economy, proposed to expand the Toledo Express Airport to serve as a new cargo hub for Burlington Air Express. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was required to approve the plan and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FAA’s EIS defined the project’s purpose as facilitating a new air cargo hub in Toledo to generate local jobs and economic growth. Consequently, the EIS only conducted a detailed analysis of two alternatives: (1) approving the Toledo expansion and (2) the “no action” alternative. It briefly considered but eliminated from detailed study other alternatives, including expanding Burlington’s existing hub in Fort Wayne or using other airports outside the Toledo area. Citizens Against Burlington, Inc., a local environmental group, challenged the FAA’s decision, arguing that the EIS was legally deficient because the FAA failed to give detailed consideration to other feasible locations, such as Fort Wayne, which could serve Burlington’s general need for a cargo hub. The group also challenged the adequacy of the FAA’s analysis of noise impacts and its compliance with other environmental statutes.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the Federal Aviation Administration violate the National Environmental Policy Act by defining the purpose of its action so as to limit the detailed analysis of alternatives in its Environmental Impact Statement to the applicant’s proposed project and a “no action” alternative?
No. The court held that the FAA’s definition of the project’s purpose Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostru
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the Federal Aviation Administration violate the National Environmental Policy Act by defining the purpose of its action so as to limit the detailed analysis of alternatives in its Environmental Impact Statement to the applicant’s proposed project and a “no action” alternative?
Conclusion
This decision grants federal agencies significant deference in framing the purpose and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
Legal Rule
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an agency's discussion of alternatives Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pro
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the deference afforded to an agency in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim a
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under NEPA, an agency may reasonably define a project’s purpose to