This case dealt with planning regulations that control activities in the U.S. national forest system. In 1982, the United States had adopted comprehensive forest regulations that required each forest manager to prepare individual plans outlining fish and wildlife habitats and monitoring special wildlife species as a strategy for their protection. In 2005, these regulations were changed, giving forest managers more discretion to approve logging and other commercial projects without the wildlife species viability and diversity requirements provided under the 1982 regulations. These changes were adopted by the federal Government without opening them to any additional public notice or comment. Besides that, unlike prior rules, the 2005 Rule was issued without the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. The court was of the view that the changes the administration had made had to be characterized as paradigm shifts to the prior regulations. Thus, the 2005 provisions were not exempted from public notice and comment. The Administration had failed to afford interested parties the chance to comment on the changes. Moreover, it had failed to consider the environmental effects of the changes it had made to the rule, including eliminating the requirement that forests had to ensure the protection and survival of special wildlife species. The Administration was enjoined from implementing the rule, and the Government had to conduct further evaluation of the environmental impacts and afford to the public the possibility to comment.