RESPONDENT: Hiram G. Hill
LOCATION: Tellico Dam
DOCKET NO.: 76-1701
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
CITATION: 437 US 153 (1978)
ARGUED: Apr 18, 1978
DECIDED: Jun 15, 1978
GRANTED: Nov 14, 1977
Griffin B. Bell - for petitioner
Zygmunt J. B. Plater - for respondents
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.
(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?
Media for Tennessee Valley Authority v. HillAudio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 18, 1978 in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 15, 1978 in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
Warren E. Burger:
Well, I have the opinion, judgment and opinion for the Court to announce in Tennessee valley authority against Hill and I will discuss it only briefly.
This case has been identified as one involving a three-inch fish which on the occasion of the argument, the Attorney General brought to the vector encased in a small flask.
It is a species of the Perch family, which will, according to all the evidence in the case and the findings of the Secretary of the Interior be exterminated if the Tellico dam which is project of the TVA complex is allowed to operate.
The case also involves $120 million dam which was authorized by the Congress and that dam is virtually completed and ready to operate.
In reality, in the view of the majority of the Court, the case involves something more important than either a three-inch fish which is endangered as a species or even then $120 million dam.
As the majority of the Court sees it, some very important and fundamental principles of the separation of powers are at stake.
Congress has categorically provided that no project may be carried out, may be carried out if it endangers the existence of any species which the Secretary of the Interior declares is endangered and he has done so here.
We hold then under the established precedence of this Court and under very express and explicit rules of the Congress, an appropriation or continued appropriations do not repeal an express statute.
In our view, the Congress has, wisely or not, decreed that the endangered species have priority over even a multi-million dollar dam.
In 1966, in the Endangered Species Act, of that date and again in the 1969 Act, Congress declared that the endangered species were to be protected in effect so far as practicable but in the 1973 Act, which is the statute before us, it very pointedly removed those qualifying provisions, created as we see it, an absolute duty to preserve all endangered species.
We emphasize that under the constitution, judges have limited functions and we do not review the solemness or the wisdom of what Congress does and I will read the essence of the opinion, I think, briefly from the opinion itself which is filed this morning.
Our individual appraisal of the wisdom or unwisdom of a particular course, consciously selected by the Congress is to be put aside in the process of interpreting a statute.
Once the meaning of an enactment is discerned and its constitutionality determined, the judicial process comes to an end.
We do not sit as a committee of review, nor are we vested with the power of Veto and accordingly, we agree with the Court of Appeals of the Sixth Circuit that in our constitutional system, the commitment to the separation of powers is too fundamental and too important for us to preempt congressional action by judicially decreeing what would seem to accord to us as the common sense in the public wheel.
Our constitution invests all such responsibilities in the political branches and the matter is now is in the hands of Congress.
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.:
I dissent orally because the court's decision is aviate, is quite erroneous and will create serious and far reaching consequences.
As the Chief Justice has stated, this is the famous snail darter case.
The darter is of three-inch pitch, practically indistinguishable from many similar small pitch.
This has been called a case of a three-inch fish against a $120 million Tellico dam project, a project located on the little Tennessee river.
Today, the fish wins 100%.
Although, the dam has been completed and all that remains is to close the gate.
This Court will now issue a permanent injunction, a great reservoir project designed to save an impoverished area of Tennessee is ended.
This remarkable result comes about in this way.
The Endangered Species Act adopted in 1973 has a commendable objective of preserving species of animal and plant life and their habitats where they are endangered.
In the same year, the snail darter was discovered and two years later, in 1975, the Secretary of the Interior found that the Tellico project would result in destruction of the snail darter's habitat.
In February 1976, when the project was 80% completed, respondents filed this suit to enjoin completion and operation of the dam.
The district court held that Congress could not have intended to produce such an absurd result.
The words I use are those of the district court but the Court of Appeals held and this Court now agrees that the Language of the Act requires the result, however absurd it may be.
It is a language, we are indeed perfectly clear.
It would be, as the Chief Justice states, the duty of this Court to enforce it regardless of the consequences.