In cases delaying federal projects, the basis of the plaintiff's argument is typically that what has occurred?

The basis for the plaintiff's argument in cases delaying federal projects often centers around the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the agency. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions before making decisions. If a plaintiff argues that an agency did not prepare an EIS, or that the EIS prepared was inadequate, this indicates a violation of NEPA requirements.

When an EIS is deemed inadequate, it may not thoroughly evaluate the potential environmental effects of a project, which can lead to significant oversight of potential negative consequences. Consequently, this can provide sufficient grounds for legal challenges against the project, as plaintiffs may argue that the agency has not fulfilled its legal obligation to consider environmental impacts properly. Thus, the argument hinges on procedural compliance regarding environmental assessments, which directly affects the project's timeline and can cause delays until the agency rectifies the deficiencies in their EIS.