Facts of the Case
In 1967, Congress appropriated funds to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to build the Tellico Dam. In 1973 Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which protected certain species classified as “endangered”. The Secretary of the Interior declared the Snail Darter endangered. The area of the Tellico Dam was its “critical habitat”. Although the multi-million dollar project was almost completed, the project predated the ESA, and Congress continued to appropriate funds to the project after the ESA passed, Hiram Hill sued to enjoin the completion of the Dam in order to protect the Snail Darter. He argued that completing and opening the dam would violate the ESA by causing the extinction of the snail darter. The district court refused to grant the injunction and dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to issue a permanent injunction against any activities that would modify or destroy the Snail Darter’s critical habitat.
Questions
(1) Does the ESA prohibit completion of the Tellico Dam?
(2) Is the Snail Darter protected by the Endangered Species Act, even though congress continued to fund the dam project and stated that it should be completed?
Conclusions
-
Yes, Yes. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the majority opinion affirming the injunction. The Supreme Court held that Congress’ continued appropriation of funds did not imply that the Dam project was exempt from the ESA. The operation of the Tellico Dam would wipe out the Snail Darter's habitat, so an injunction was the proper remedy. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. wrote a dissent, stating that the ESA does not apply to any project that is completed or substantially completed when the threat to the endangered species arose. Justice Harry A. Blackmun joined in the dissent. Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote a dissent, arguing that the ESA did not prohibit the district court from refusing to grant an injunction.