The court holds that Endangered Species Act (ESA) §9(a)(1)'s application to a fly that exists only in California is within Congress' Commerce Clause power. The court first holds that the application of ESA §9 to the fly can be viewed as a proper exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power over act...
The court holds that the National Park Service's (NPS') decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the removal of 12 horses from Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands was not arbitrary and capricious. The NPS planned to remove the horses and other animals in order to allo...
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 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 grants summary judgment to the U.S. Department of the Interior in a citizen suit action brought against it under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS') approval of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) and a...
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 unconstitutional the requirement in §609(a) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Appropriations Act of 1990 that the executive branch initiate discussions with foreign nations to develop treaties to protect sea turtles, and holds that the Co...
The court affirms in part and reverses in part a district court decision upholding National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulations providing a Native American tribe an allocation of the Pacific whiting fishery. In the 1850s, Washington State entered into several treaties known as the Stevens Tr...