⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Eleventh Circuit hears National Wildlife Federation versus the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps operates reservoirs in the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint river system, known as the ACF basin. Those operations affect freshwater reaching Florida's Apalachicola River, floodplain, and bay. In 2017, the Corps adopted updated operating rules for water supply, flood control, and other authorized uses. Conservation groups challenged the manual and its environmental analysis, saying the Corps had understated future harm to downstream habitats and dismissed reasonable alternatives. The Corps, Georgia, and local water providers defend the manual. The district court ruled for the Corps. The appeal centers on NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Water Resources Development Act. NEPA calls for environmental review, not a particular environmental outcome. An environmental impact statement, or EIS, examines effects and alternatives. The Supreme Court's Seven County decision stresses deference to agency judgments about the scope and detail of that review. A separate question is whether water-resources law required a mitigation plan here: measures to lessen or offset ecological harm. Listen for the difference between telling the agency its study was legally inadequate and asking judges to choose how the water system should operate.

National Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (No. 21-13104) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 3, 2026.