## Facts

- The General Services Administration (GSA) planned a courthouse annex at Foley Square in lower Manhattan that included the Metropolitan Correction Center (MCC), a high-rise federal detention facility for roughly 450 detainees.
- Nearby residents and business owners challenged the project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), alleging the agency failed to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS).
- In an earlier appeal, the court required further consideration of potential effects associated with the detention facility, including impacts such as noise, traffic, and crime, and remanded for additional agency work.
- On remand, GSA prepared a 25-page environmental assessment and again concluded the MCC would not “significantly” affect the quality of the human environment, so a formal EIS was unnecessary.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction a second time, and the plaintiffs appealed again.

## Issues

1. Whether GSA’s post-remand determination that the MCC was not a “major Federal action[] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment” (and thus required no EIS) complied with NEPA.
2. Whether GSA’s decision-making process produced a reviewable environmental record, including findings on relevant factors and a meaningful opportunity for affected parties to submit evidence before the no-EIS determination.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held that GSA’s post-remand no-EIS determination did not satisfy NEPA’s procedural requirements.
- The court remanded because GSA failed to make findings on certain relevant environmental factors and failed to provide an opportunity for the plaintiffs to submit relevant evidence before the agency finalized its determination.
- The court did not order an EIS immediately; it required further investigation and findings, after which the agency would reassess whether an EIS was required.

## Legal Principles

- NEPA imposes enforceable procedural duties even at the threshold stage of deciding whether an action’s effects are “significant” enough to require an EIS.
- A no-EIS determination must be supported by a reasoned, reviewable record; conclusory agency assurances are insufficient.
- “Environment” under NEPA includes effects on the “quality of the human environment,” which may include social and neighborhood impacts, not only physical or ecological changes.
- An agency must address relevant impact categories implicated by the proposed action (including community character and public-safety-related effects where raised by the project and the record).
- NEPA decision-making requires procedures that allow interested persons a meaningful opportunity to provide information so that environmental considerations are fully aired and judicial review is possible.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit remanded the NEPA dispute because the agency’s renewed no-EIS determination lacked findings on key environmental factors and was reached without giving affected parties a meaningful chance to submit evidence, requiring further agency investigation and a fuller record before deciding whether an EIS was necessary.


Hanly v. Kleindienst, 471 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1972)