The court holds that the U.S. Postal Service did not violate either the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it proposed an experimental program that delivers nonpriority mail by surface hovercraft instead of fixed-wing aircraft to eight remote Alas...
The Court reverses the Federal Circuit and holds that the United States breached its contracts with two oil companies when, acting under the Outer Banks Protection Act (OBPA), it delayed approval of the companies' exploration plan. The companies paid the government $158 million in return for contrac...
The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers properly granted a riverboat casino operator a Clean Water Act (CWA) and Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act permit to construct and operate a riverboat gambling facility on the Ohio River in Indiana. The court first holds that the Corps proper...
The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or act arbitrarily or capriciously in granting a developer a permit to fill wetlands abutting Lake Ponchatrain in Louisiana without first preparing an environmental impact statement (EI...
The court holds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it issued a permit to a developer that planned to fill wetlands for a mixed use development project in Los Angeles County, California, and, therefore, vacated a district court's in...
The court holds that the owners and operators of public water systems in California violated the national primary drinking water regulations for microbiological contaminants, lead, and copper contained in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and holds them individually liable for those violations. The...
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.
In its first week of business during the new millennium, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., and provided important clarifications about the law of standing in environmental citizen suits. Specifically, the Court rejected the narrow view of environmental injury-in-fact advocated by Justice Scalia and instead adhered to the broader view of injury-in-fact established in a nonenvironmental context by the Court's decision in Federal Elections Commission v. Akins.