dismissed

Plaintiff private school filed an application for a special permit with the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumball (Commission) for the installation of four light poles, seventy feet in height, to illuminate the school’s primary athletic field. The Comission denied the special permit after considering concerns from resident neighbors of the private school that allowing the lights would adversely affect the "use and enjoyment" of their properties.

The US Department of Defense (DOD) approved the construction of a new military base in Okinawa. Japanese citizens and organizations brought action against the DOD for not considering the impact on the Okinawa dugong. Construction activities would require night lighting, which the Japanese environmental impact statement anticipated would not negatively affect the dugongs because the project would take preventive measures such as lighting cones.

Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill in the San Juan Basin, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to analyze indirect effects of fracking on Chaco Park, a National Historic site, including light pollution from nighttime drilling activity.

Plaintiffs alleged that the approval by the defendant United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA) application violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Plaintiffs sought an order holding unlawful and setting aside the FWS’ decision to enter into the land exchange and transfer the corridor to JPPHA. The plaintiffs' concerns about the highway include "increased noise and artificial light" which could negatively impact wildlife by "interfering with the ability to avoid danger, locate food, reproduce, migrate, avoid collisions, and evade predators."

Plaintiffs, whose property is located within a zone over which aircraft from Arcata-Eureka Airport routinely fly, challenge the constitutionality of a Humboldt County general plan requirement that they provide an aircraft overflight easement as a condition for obtaining a building permit to make minor alterations to their residence, arguing that the easement requirement constitutes a taking of their property without payment of just compensation. The overflight easement grants the County the right to, among other things, "regulate or prohibit light emissions that might interfere with pilot vision."

The City amended its Motor Vehicle Dealers Ordinance, which required used-car dealers to obtain a license for each location at which they sell cars and set boundaries about how close used-car dealerships can be to residential areas. The Ordinance stated in its preamble that its purpose was to curb any detrimental effects on the surrounding residential communities, including nighttime glare and light pollution. The City denied the plaintiffs a license under the amended Ordinance, the plaintiffs appealed, and the City denied that appeal. The plaintiffs sued the City, alleging that the denial of their license-application appeal violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions.

Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the United States Forest Service from re-opening the "Canyon Mine" in Northern Arizona, alleging that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act and that the "valid existing rights determination" by the Forest Service failed to consider all relevant cost factors. Plaintiff's concerns about the re-opening of the mine involve environmental and historical impacts of the mine on Indigenous land surrounding the mine, as well as dust, truck traffic, light pollution and noise.

After plaintiff company purchased a parcel of land in the City of Simi Valley, plaintiff was denied a permit by the City to develop the property into a hotel. The City had concerns about the effects of noise, lights, and possible night-time disturbance to the residential area near the parcel if the parcel was developed commercially. The City then amended its General Plan so that the parcel could only be used for residential development. Plaintiff company challenged this redesignation as unconstitutional and in violation of state law.

A group of individual plaintiffs challenged the validity of the gaming compact entered into by the State of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (the Tribes), which allowed development of the Hatch Tract by the Tribes for gaming purposes. The plaintiffs alleged that they would be harmed by the Tribes' casino on the Hatch Tract through higher taxes, reduced property values, increased traffic congestion, increased air, noise and light pollution, and the detrimental effect on local businesses.