TVA v. HILL Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court enjoined a nearly complete, $100 million federal dam to protect a newly discovered endangered fish. The Court held the Endangered Species Act’s plain language absolutely forbids federal actions that jeopardize a species, regardless of cost or project status, leaving no room for judicial balancing.
Legal Significance: Established the Endangered Species Act as one of the most stringent environmental laws, demonstrating that its command to protect species takes priority over all other federal agency missions and economic considerations, barring an explicit congressional exemption.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federal agency, was nearing completion of the Tellico Dam, a project begun in 1967. In 1973, after substantial funds had been expended, a new species of fish, the snail darter, was discovered in the river segment that the dam would flood. That same year, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Secretary of the Interior subsequently listed the snail darter as an endangered species and designated the river area as its “critical habitat,” concluding that the dam’s operation would cause the species’ extinction. Despite this finding and the ESA’s mandate, TVA intended to complete the project. Congress continued to pass appropriations for the dam, with committee reports indicating an awareness of the conflict and a desire for the project to be completed. Environmental groups sued to enjoin the dam’s completion, citing a violation of Section 7 of the ESA.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act require a court to enjoin the completion and operation of a nearly-finished federal project when it is determined that the project will eradicate a listed endangered species?
Yes. The Court held that the ESA’s plain language and legislative history Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act require a court to enjoin the completion and operation of a nearly-finished federal project when it is determined that the project will eradicate a listed endangered species?
Conclusion
This landmark decision established the judiciary's role in strictly enforcing the absolute Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
Legal Rule
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaeca
Legal Analysis
The Court, led by Chief Justice Burger, engaged in a strict textualist Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: The Endangered Species Act’s plain language requires halting a nearly