US v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc.

<> US v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc. - 5/28/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 11-4872. The defendants, consist of an asbestos air monitoring company, five of its employees, and an employee of an asbestos abatement contractor, were convicted, collectively. The Appeals Court ruled the judgments of conviction as to CES, and 4 of the employees are vacated. The case is remanded for a new trial as to CES, and two employees and for resentencing for two employees.

Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency

<> Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency – 5/27/14. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 13-921. On appeals from the U.S. Appeals Court, Tenth Circuit, certiorari denied. The High Court refused to review the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals prior decisions to uphold the United States Environmental Protection Agency's plan to cut haze pollution.

Sierra Club: "United States Supreme Court Leaves Clean Air Protections Standing, Knocks Oklahoma Polluters"

Recent U.S. Appeals Court Cases

<> Center for Biol. Diversity v. U.S. EPA - 5/27/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 12-1238. Petitioners claim that EPA's failure to issue a new multi-pollutant rule in 2012, violated the Clean Air Act. EPA explained at length that the uncertainty it faced was unusually profound. Petitioners question that conclusion, but as between petitioners' critique and EPA's scientific analysis, EPA's judgment prevails -- "the petition for judicial review is denied."

<> Electric Power Supply Assoc. v. FERC - 5/23/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 11-1486, consolidated with 11-1489, 12-1088, 12-1091, 12-1093. Electric Power Supply Association and four other energy industry associations petition the court for review of a FERC final rule that seeks to incentivize retail customers to reduce electricity consumption when economically efficient. Petitioners say the new rule goes too far, encroaching on the states' exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the retail market. The Panel agreed and vacated the rule in its entirety.

• NRDC Says: Court Deals Setback to Cleaner Electric Transmission Grid

Larry Klein v. US DOE

<> Larry Klein v. US DOE - In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No.13-1165. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette. Frontier Renewable Resources sought funding from the Department of Energy to build a plant in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan that would convert lumber into ethanol. Larry Klein and the Sierra Club sued to stop the project. The district court rejected the claims because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring them and because the Department of Energy at any rate permissibly found no significant impact from the proposed plant. We reverse in part and affirm in part. The Appeals Court indicated that Klein had standing to sue, but, "In the final analysis, the Department completed a thorough environmental assessment of the Frontier plant and reasonably described the environmental impacts the assessment identifies as not significant. The National Environmental Policy Act requires no more."

Recent U.S. Appeals Court Cases

<> People of the State of California v. US Dept. of the Interior - 5/19/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 12-55856 & 12-55956. The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal defendants and intervenor water districts in an action challenging an environmental impact statement prepared by the Secretary of the Interior that analyzed the effects of water transfer agreements on the Salton Sea in southern California.

<> BP denied rehearing by 5th Circuit – 5/19/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 13-30315 & consolidated cases. the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. In the en banc poll, five judges voted in favor of rehearing.

• Additional information from The Legal Examiner

Recent U.S. Appeals Court Decisions

<> WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA - 5/13/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1212. Petitioners sought to require EPA to add coal mines to the regulated list of stationary source categories under the Clean Air Act. The Panel ruled: "We disagree. On the record before us, we find that EPA's action easily passes muster under the 'extremely limited' and 'highly deferential' standard that governs our review of an agency's denial of a rulemaking petition."

<> Coal River Energy, LLC v. Sally Jewell - 5/13/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-5119. Appellant argued that the fee under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act was unconstitutional because the Export Clause of the Constitution states that "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any state." The district court dismissed the case as untimely. The Panel affirmed.

<> United Fire & Casualty Company  v.  Titan Contractors Service, Inc - 05/13/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No: 13-1307. The case involves whether coverage and defense were barred by the "absolute pollution exclusion" and regarding whether TIAH, an acrylic concrete sealant, would fall within the policy's definition of a pollutant. The majority Panel ruled that TIAH was a pollutant and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

In Defense of Animals v. US Dept. of the Interior

<> In Defense of Animals v. US Dept. of the Interior – 5/12/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-17804. The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal defendants in an action alleging that the roundup, or gather, of wild horses and burros from the Twin Peaks Herd Management Area on the California-Nevada border violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

National Association of Manufacturers v. U.S. EPA

<> National Association of Manufacturers v. U.S. EPA - May 9. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case Nos. 13-1069 & 13-1071. The Panel said: "In 2013, EPA tightened the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, for fine particulate matter. The National Association of Manufacturers and other industry groups challenge that decision. Consistent with the general principle that the Clean Air Act gives EPA substantial discretion in setting the NAAQS, we deny the petitions for review.

League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton

<> League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton - In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No.13-35653. The Panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's order, denying a motion to preliminarily enjoin the Snow Basin logging project -- with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction sufficient to protect the status quo while the USFS completes a supplemental environmental impact statement

Monroe Energy, LLC v. U.S. EPA

<> Monroe Energy, LLC v. U.S. EPA - 5/6/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1265. The case involves challenges the 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards issued pursuant to section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o). Petitioners contend that the rule must be vacated and the Panel denied the petition for review.

Latest Case Updates - Supreme Court & 9th Circuit

<> Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. NRDC - 5/5/14. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 13-901. Appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Petition DENIED.

• Supreme Court Allows Major Southern California Water Quality Victory to Stand - (May 5, 2014) – NRDC release: A decision today by the U.S. Supreme Court will protect millions of people living near and visiting Los Angeles rivers and beaches from the harmful effects of water pollution.

<> City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp - 5/2/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 12-55147 & 12-55193. The case involves excessive levels of the chemical perchlorate were found in a city's water system. The Panel ruled, "Because the district court abused its discretion by not allowing a jury to resolve contested but otherwise admissible expert testimony, we reverse the district court's order of exclusion, affirm the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment on other issues, and remand for trial."