布希政府最近打算限制環保人士與公益團體挑戰聯邦條例的權利，而美國最高法院在近日作出初步裁決，傾向於支持布希政府的作法。
這事件焦點，在於對美國林務署新頒條例所產生的輿論爭議。法律專家認為，法院的最終決定可能會造成深遠的影響，並使得個人及第三方對於聯邦當局所頒佈的條例，幾乎沒有抗辯的機會。
爭議中的林務署條例於2003實施，規範了面積250畝以下之伐木計劃，以及面績1000畝（含以下）的森林疏伐計畫。當局2003年9月間借由這項條例授權一項世界爺國家森林的除害伐計畫，稱之為「燃峰計畫」（Burnt Ridge Project），實施面積涵蓋了加州在2002年受到大火殘害的238畝森林。
為此，環境團體提出告訴希望禁止當局銷售這批除害伐所得林材。美國聯邦林務署隨後停止銷售，並與環團達成和解。然而，環團質疑的是該做為所依據的法令，認為布希政府的作法違反了林務署的《申訴改革法》。
稍後，一地方法院支持環境團體，阻止此條例在全國實施。法院第九巡迴庭維持這一裁決，這促使布希政府向最高法院提出上訴。
美國副檢察長尼德（Edwin Kneedler）的見解是，第三方必須等待程序性條例實施後，方可進行對其提出訴訟，否則對審理來說，是「不成熟的時機」。他認為，「程序性條例並不造成傷害」。
代表環保團體的「西部環境法中心」律師肯納（Matt Kenna）則認為，對該條例提出抗告是適當的，因為「我們能夠證實有一個計畫中使用該條例，且此條例會繼續被使用。」
不過，法院的保守派法官，包括終審法院首席法官約翰羅伯茨（John Roberts），似乎不接受肯納的論點。
大法官金斯伯格（Ruth Bader Ginsburg）和蘇特（David Souter）表示贊同肯納的意見，並對副總檢察長的立場存疑。
許多產業群體，包括房屋建築組織、農民、木材公司和農藥企業代表，都表示支持政府的立場，而公益團體、環境和行政法學教授、加州政府，則較贊同提告的地球島嶼（Earth Island Institute）等組織的觀點。
最高法院預計將在明年年初作出決定。
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared sympathetic to a legal position held by the Bush administration that would limit environmentalists and other public interest groups from challenging federal regulations.
The case centers on a dispute over rules imposed by the U.S. Forest Service, but legal experts contend the court's ultimate decision could have far-reaching impacts and make it nearly impossible for many individuals and third parties to contest rules enacted by federal agencies.
The 2003 Forest Service rules affected timber projects of less than 250 acres and "forest thinning" projects of 1,000 acres or less.
The agency applied these rules to a decision it made in September 2003 authorizing a salvage timber sale in the Sequoia National Forest. The Burnt Ridge Project covered 238 acres of land burned in a massive fire that ravaged the California forest in 2002.
A coalition of environmental groups sued to block the sale. The Forest Service subsequently withdrew the sale and settled the case, but environmental groups challenged the underlying regulations, arguing the Bush administration violated the Forest Service's Appeals Reform Act when it enacted the rules.
A U.S. district court sided with the environmental groups, blocking implementation of the regulations nationwide.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, prompting the Bush administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.
U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler explained, third parties must wait until a procedural rule is applied before challenging it, otherwise it is not "ripe" for review. "The procedural regulation does not cause the injury," Kneedler said.
Matt Kenna, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center representing the environmentalists, countered that the challenge to the rules was appropriate because "we can show that the regulations had been applied to a project and continued to be applied."
The court's conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared unconvinced by Kenna's arguments.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter were more sympathetic to Kenna's view and queried the deputy solicitor general's position.
An array of industry groups, including organizations representing home builders, farmers, timber companies and the pesticide industry, have voiced support for the government's position, while public interest groups, environmental and administrative law professors and the state of California have favored the views of Earth Island Institute in the case.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision early next year.
