Harrosh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Michael Harrosh, No. 2:21-cv-01969-KJM-JDP Plaintiff, ORDER v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 In their pending cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties advance competing 18 iterpretations of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact between Nevada and California approved by Congress under the Compacts Clause. Plaintiff Michael Harrosh contends the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact unambiguously requires five affirmative votes by the California delegation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s governing board to approve all projects. Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 6, ECF No. 95. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency denies its governing board must approve all projects by affirmative vote; it has long delegated approval 24 decisions out of necessity, and it argues California and Nevada have consented to the delegation 25 of project approvals. Agency Mot. at 14-15,…