In the case of Costle, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency v. Pacific Legal Foundation et al., 1979, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 4(f) of the Clean Air Act Amendments required notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The EPA had issued regulations that established new source performance standards for stationary sources of air pollution without following these procedures. The Pacific Legal Foundation challenged this action on behalf of several industries affected by it. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that such procedural requirements were not necessary because Congress intended for Section 4(f) to be an exception to general rulemaking processes in order to allow swift regulatory responses from EPA when public health is at risk due to harmful pollutants.

In the dissenting opinion for Costle, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency v. Pacific Legal Foundation et al., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He argued that Congress did not intend to give absolute priority to endangered species over primary national interests such as health and safety. Instead, he believed that Congress intended a more balanced approach where economic considerations would also be taken into account when making decisions about endangered species. He further criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history rather than clear statutory language in interpreting Section 4(f), stating it was an inappropriate method of statutory interpretation. Finally, he expressed concern that this ruling could lead to absurd results if applied consistently - for example, halting all construction nationwide if it threatened any endangered species.