In the case of Flint Ridge Development Co. v. Scenic Rivers Association of Oklahoma et al., 1975, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Flint Ridge Development Company. The company was accused by Scenic Rivers Association and other environmental groups for violating the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act by not including an impact statement about a proposed development's potential harm to Illinois River in their property report filed with HUD (Housing and Urban Development). However, the court found that requiring such a statement would conflict with another federal law - National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which mandates an impact statement only when there are "major Federal actions significantly affecting quality of human environment". Since HUD’s role was limited to receiving and suspending filings rather than approving or disapproving them, it did not constitute as a major federal action under NEPA. Therefore, no environmental review was required from Flint Ridge before marketing its land.

In the dissenting opinion for Flint Ridge Development Co. v. Scenic Rivers Association of Oklahoma, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart, argued that the majority's interpretation of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act was too narrow and failed to consider Congress' intent in passing it - protecting consumers from fraudulent land sales practices across state lines. They contended that requiring a developer to wait for federal approval before selling property did not constitute an undue burden on commerce but rather served as a necessary safeguard against potential frauds or abuses in interstate land transactions. The dissent also criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history instead of focusing on statutory language itself which clearly stated its applicability regardless of whether lands were subject to future development or not.