The court vacated a lower court order denying environmental groups' motion for attorneys fees in an underlying case challenging a surface mining operation permit. In that case, the groups sought, and eventually obtained, a writ of mandamus setting aside the permit. Pursuant to California Code of Civ...
The court rejects a mining association's statutory and constitutional claims challenging a 1999 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) rule defining "valid existing rights." The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act prohibits new surface coal mining operations on certain lan...
The Fourth Circuit affirmed an award of attorney fees in a citizen suit brought under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act with respect to the preliminary injunction phase of the litigation, but reversed fees awarded for the supplemental claims phase. The supplemental phase included plaint...
The D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI's) interpretation of "valid existing rights" in a 1999 rule to foreclose surface mining operations in sensitive areas. A mining association argued that Congress inserted "valid existing rights" in the Surface Mining Control and Recla...
The Tenth Circuit held that the Federal Mineral Leasing Act (FMLA) does not provide political subdivisions of a state an implied cause of action to challenge the state's allocation of federal mineral royalties received under the Act. FMLA §191 directs the federal government to return 50% of fed...
The court holds that a Wisconsin farming family's state-law claims against a pesticide manufacturer are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The family filed negligence and fraudulent representation claims based on the manufacturer's alleged off-label stateme...
The court affirms that the denial of a Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) permit did not breach a contract between a developer and the government of the Virgin Islands allowing for the development of an island off the coast of St. Thomas. The court first holds that the agreement unambiguously grants...
The court holds that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts failure to warn claims brought by the purchasers of a container of chlorine tablets, but that FIFRA does not preempt their defective packaging and product design claims. The court first holds that the purch...
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) represent federal regulatory regimes for protecting the environment. Although each statute initially places administrative responsibility in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each encourages states, to varying degrees, to take primary responsibility for implementing the statutory regime.
In Environmental Federalism Part 1: The History of Overfiling Under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA Prior to Harmon, Smithfield, and CLEAN, the history of judicial and administrative decisions relating to overfiling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) was analyzed. The history showed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with limited exceptions, generally was understood to have overfiling authority under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA. The limited exceptions focused on two situations.