The court holds that the Court of Federal Claims improperly held that the Stafford Act, collateral estoppel, and a contract release barred a South Florida trailer park owner's breach of contract claim against the federal government, but the owner's taking and inverse condemnation claims were appropr...
The court denies petitions to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) relicensing of a hydroelectric project in Maine. The petitioners argue that FERC's rejection of minimum flow requirements in a branch of the Penobscot River that is blocked from receiving water due to a dam loca...
The court denies a construction company's petition to review an administrative law judge's (ALJ's) order upholding a nine-item citation against the company for violating Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for lead exposure in construction work. The court first holds that ...
The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it failed to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to the permitting of three casinos on the Mississippi coast. Mississippi law requires casinos to be located on floating vessels...
The court affirms a district court holding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for a flood control project on the Mississippi River satisfied the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court first holds that the Corps' SEIS satisfied NEPA'...
The court grants Rhode Island's motion to preliminarily enjoin proceedings before the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in which several state employees sought damages and other relief against the state for allegedly violating the Solid Waste Disposal Act's whistleblower protection provision. The court...
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.
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), point source dischargers are required to obtain federal discharge permits and to comply with permit limits sufficient to make progress toward the achievement of water quality standards or goals. As water quality standards become increasingly stringent, industrial and municipal dischargers are being pressured to accept permit limits that are difficult, if not impossible, to meet.