South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The appellate court first examined the use of a habitat surrogate in assessing environmental impacts—evaluating habitat loss rather than specific bat population numbers—and concluded that the district court had not erred in its analysis. The court determined that there was a clear causal link between the destruction of habitat acres and the incidental take of bats. Additionally, the appellate court concurred with the district court’s finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to justify injunctive relief. The court emphasized established precedent, which limits judicial review to determining whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers took a "hard look" at the environmental consequences, rather than allowing the court to substitute its own judgment for that of the agency. Given the Corps' thorough consideration of each factor raised by the appellants in its environmental assessment, the appellate court upheld the district court’s ruling.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied environmental organizations’ motion for an injunction pending their appeal of a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction to block a developer from proceeding with a multi-use project in an area in the City of Charleston and Berkeley County where plaintiffs alleged coastal flooding was a major problem. The plaintiffs argued that the district court failed to consider risks from flooding and sea level rise posed by the development’s placement of “thousands of new homes in a low-lying, flood-prone area.”