The court affirms the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) decision to redesignate the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, area as a Clean Air Act (CAA) attainment area for ozone. The court first holds that an organization of manufacturers and local governments from the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,...
The court dismisses environmental groups' petition to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) refusal to initiate an Endangered Species Act (ESA) §7(a)(2) consultation regarding its ongoing regulatory authority over a power company's Hells Canyon complex in Idaho. The court first...
The Court holds that the tribal exhaustion doctrine does not require a district court to abstain from deciding whether Native Americans' tort claims arising from uranium mining on their reservation constitute public liability actions under the Price-Anderson Act. The defendant companies filed suit i...
The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) adoption of a rule requiring compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) of major emission sources complies with the Clean Air Act (CAA) §114(a)(3)'s enhanced monitoring requirements. The court first holds that EPA's adoption of CAM ...
The court holds that the Price-Anderson Act conferred federal jurisdiction on a district court in a removal action where individuals alleged tortious injury arising from uranium mining. In two separate class action suits, over 1,000 individuals alleged personal injury and property damage arising fro...
For the last several years, federal circuit courts have debated the exact jurisdictional scope of §404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Army (the Army), acting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), to issue permits "for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites." The circuit courts have based their debates on the assumption, well-supported by earlier CWA decisions, that Congress intended the term "navigable waters" within the CWA to extend to the limits of the U.S. Commerce Clause.
Environmentalists are no strangers to disappointment in the U.S. Supreme Court, but the recent case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) is particularly disappointing. First, it might be said that the impact of the opinion, in circumstances in which legislative amendment is virtually impossible, may be the most devastating judicial opinion affecting the environment ever.
Does the use by migratory birds of isolated, intrastate waters establish enough of a connection to "navigable waters" and interstate commerce to permit federal regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the U.S. Commerce Clause? The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinks so, but courts and commentators have not been entirely sympathetic to the Corps' so-called migratory bird rule. The Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thomas (in a dissent from denial of certiorari) have rejected such a broad jurisdictional reach in no uncertain terms.
The court holds that the New York Air Pollution Mitigation Law is preempted by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and violates the U.S. Commerce Clause. Under Air Pollution Mitigation Law §66-k, an electric generator is assessed an offset penalty when it sells a sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowance to a generator i...
The court holds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a citizen group's request for a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to prevent further implementation of the early component removal plan for decommissioning the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant and to enjoin t...