ABSTRACT
This chapter examines how the judiciary interprets congressional statutes, including the Organic Act and other environmental statutes, how it interplays with Congress, agencies and other interest groups, and how conflicts in public land management are perceived and resolved in the judicial sphere. A crucial question is whether case law has firmly established that the Organic Act should be read as a conservation mandate. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) case is symbolic in the case law regarding the interpretation of the Organic Act. It was the first time that the district court ruled against the National Park Service's (NPS) management decision on the basis of its violation of the Organic Act instead of other environmental statutes. The National Rifle Association of America (NRAA) asserted that the Organic Act did not prohibit 'properly regulated hunting and trapping' activities, whereas the NPS argued that conservation of wildlife meant safeguarding it from harm, whether from natural or human causes.
