The court holds that summary judgment was improvidently granted in favor of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a suit brought by property owners who claimed that the Corps' refusal to grant the owners a Clean Water Act (CWA) §404 dredge and fill permit for 50 acres of submerged lands constituted a...
The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers properly granted a riverboat casino operator a Clean Water Act (CWA) and Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act permit to construct and operate a riverboat gambling facility on the Ohio River in Indiana. The court first holds that the Corps proper...
The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or act arbitrarily or capriciously in granting a developer a permit to fill wetlands abutting Lake Ponchatrain in Louisiana without first preparing an environmental impact statement (EI...
The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it issued a permit to a developer that planned to fill wetlands for a mixed use development project in Los Angeles County, California, and, therefore, vacated a district court's in...
Perhaps Congress should throw up its hands and move on to something more manageable than global climate change. Richard Lazarus asserts that the challenges of enacting effective national strategies for mitigating and adapting to changes in the Earth's climate are not just "wicked," but "super wicked," meaning they defy resolution.
The last 18 months have produced particularly interesting juridical and administrative pronouncements in the areas of Clean Water Act (CWA or Act) jurisdiction, permits, standards, citizen suits, and other enforcement. On the jurisdictional front, we learned that "deep ripping" constitutes an "addition" of a pollutant by a "point source." We also learned that 25-year-old cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act) 28 years ago, the federal courts have been called upon to sort out the respective roles of the federal and state governments in connection with numerous aspects of the statute's implementation and enforcement. Congress has superimposed an additional layer of complexity on the CWA experiment in creative federalism—the citizen suit provision.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. may prove to be the most important environmental decision since Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Laidlaw's primary significance lies in its discussion of the injury component of the U.S. Supreme Court's now familiar three-part standing test.
In its first week of business during the new millennium, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., and provided important clarifications about the law of standing in environmental citizen suits. Specifically, the Court rejected the narrow view of environmental injury-in-fact advocated by Justice Scalia and instead adhered to the broader view of injury-in-fact established in a nonenvironmental context by the Court's decision in Federal Elections Commission v. Akins.
As law students frequently discover during exams, the law of standing is easy to state but hard to apply. The basic rules are simple and well-settled. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, in order to invoke federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of an "injury-in-fact" that is "legally cognizable," "fairly traceable" to the defendant, and capable of being "redressed" by the court. Each of the terms in quotation marks seems clear enough on the surface but has proved remarkably tricky in practice.