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 upholds an injunction requiring an ore processing plant owner to provide the U.S. Forest Service with access to the area surrounding his mill and precluding further operations until the Forest Service approves a new operating plant. The court first holds that the district court did not err...
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 Alaska mining commissioner permissibly nullified the mining rights acquired by a mining claims locator on state-selected federal lands. The court first holds that the commissioner did not err in finding that the locator was not qualified to conduct business in Alaska and, th...
The court reverses a district court summary judgment decision that ordered the owners of unpatented mill site claims in the Tonto National Forest in Arizona to remove themselves and all their things from the sites and to restore the sites to their natural condition. The government sought to evict th...
The court accepts and enters a consent decree between a citizen group and West Virginia's environmental agency that commits the agency to strengthen the application and oversight of the state's surface coal mining program authorized under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The g...
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...