The court holds that a district court properly granted summary judgment to the city of Philadelphia on residents' Administrative Procedure Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) claims that the city did not properly perform environmental an...
The court reverses a district court and holds that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other federal defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by preparing an untimely and inadequate environmental assessment (E...
The court holds moot a neighborhood association's claim that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued a permit for the construction of a retail development. The court first holds that the association's original requests for relief in this action ...
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 affirms a district court decision that the U.S. Forest Service did not need to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) before adopting the policies and procedural rules that excluded certain types of categorical exclusions (CEs) for timber harves...
The court denies environmental groups' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin new U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapon Stockpile Stewardship and Management (SSM) facilities, as well as activities or major upgrades to mission capability based on alleged violations of the National Env...
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.