Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council
E77022
Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of federal agencies’ obligations under NEPA, holding that the Act requires thorough environmental impact analysis but not the adoption of any particular mitigation measures.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T615029 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council Context triple: [National Environmental Policy Act, relatedCaseLaw, Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council]
-
A.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
-
E.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council Target entity description: Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of federal agencies’ obligations under NEPA, holding that the Act requires thorough environmental impact analysis but not the adoption of any particular mitigation measures.
-
A.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case that curtailed Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment and held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be applied to the states.
-
E.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (30)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
administrative law case ⓘ environmental law case ⓘ |
| abbreviation |
NEPA
ⓘ
linked to:
National Environmental Policy Act
|
| areaOfLaw |
environmental impact assessment
ⓘ
federal administrative procedure ⓘ |
| category |
United States Supreme Court cases on administrative law
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases on environmental law ⓘ |
| citation | 490 U.S. 332 ⓘ |
| clarifies | that NEPA does not impose a substantive duty on agencies to achieve particular environmental outcomes ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1989 ⓘ |
| EISRequirement | case clarifies the content and scope of environmental impact statements under NEPA ⓘ |
| holding |
NEPA does not require federal agencies to adopt any particular mitigation measures identified in an environmental impact statement
ⓘ
linked to:
National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA is essentially procedural and does not mandate particular substantive environmental results ⓘ
linked to:
National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare a thorough environmental impact statement for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment ⓘ |
| impact |
frequently cited in later NEPA litigation
ⓘ
limited the extent to which courts can require agencies to implement specific mitigation measures under NEPA ⓘ reinforced the procedural nature of NEPA obligations ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalPrinciple |
federal agencies must take a hard look at environmental consequences before taking major actions
ⓘ
mitigation measures must be discussed in an environmental impact statement but need not be adopted ⓘ |
| legalSubject | National Environmental Policy Act ⓘ |
| party |
Methow Valley Citizens Council
ⓘ
Robertson ⓘ |
| requires | disclosure and consideration of environmental consequences before agency action ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted |
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
ⓘ
linked to:
National Environmental Policy Act
|
| subjectMatter | federal approval of a development project with potential environmental impacts ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1989 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council Description of subject: Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the scope of federal agencies’ obligations under NEPA, holding that the Act requires thorough environmental impact analysis but not the adoption of any particular mitigation measures.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.