Supreme Court Will Hear Challenges To EPA MATS Rule

<> Supreme Court Will Hear Challenges To EPA MATS Rule – [See SCOTUS blog discussion] The Court accepted three new petitions, but consolidated them for one hour of argument and for decision.  The cases are Michigan v. EPA, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, and National Mining Association v. EPA. The Court Says Challenge Is Limited - The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following question: "Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities." Statement by Attorney General Schuette on SCOTUS Decision to Review Michigan v. EPA Case EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) website

USA v. Duane Montgomery

<> USA v. Duane Montgomery - 11/24/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 13-2596. Appealed from the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. Defendant Duane Montgomery challenges the district court's imposition of an above-Guidelines sentence after a jury convicted him of fraudulently obtaining funds set aside for victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (i.e. a fake $2.58 million claim). The Appeals Court affirmed the district court ruling.

Gary Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc.

<> Gary Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc. - 11/18/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 14-5047. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Paducah. The Appeals Court indicated, "Gary Vander Boegh applied for a job with EnergySolutions. He alleges that the prospective employer did not hire him because he engaged in protected whistleblower activity at a prior job. The district court held that Vander Boegh lacked statutory standing as an applicant―not employee―and granted summary judgment in favor of EnergySolutions. Because we agree that Vander Boegh lacks statutory standing under the Energy Reorganization Act and False Claims Act, and we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims, we affirm.

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. USDA

<> Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. USDA - 11/20/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35253. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment in favor of federal and Montana state agencies and officials in an action brought by Alliance for the Wild Rockies, challenging the decision to permit recurring, low altitude helicopter flights to haze bison in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone.

Cuomo v. Crane Co.

<> Cuomo v. Crane Co. - 11/13/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 13-4510. Crane argues that the district court erred by requiring evidence that the Navy either affirmatively proscribed or dictated the content of asbestos warnings as the basis of Crane's federal contractor defense. The Panel said, "Because we agree that Crane has asserted a colorable federal contractor defense despite the absence of such evidence, we reverse."

Shell Gulf of Mexico v. Center for Biological Diversity, et al.

<> Shell Gulf of Mexico v. Center for Biological Diversity, et al. - 11/12/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35835. The panel reversed the district court's order denying environmental groups' motion to dismiss, due to lack of a case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a Declaratory Judgment Act lawsuit filed by Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., seeking a declaration that the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's approval of two oil spill response plans, required by the Oil Pollution Act, for Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal Court Tosses Shell Oil Company's Preemptive Suit Against Environmental Groups - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected today a Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. and Shell Offshore Inc. lawsuit that attempted to prevent environmental groups from challenging. . .

Tamosaitis v. URS, Inc.

<> Tamosaitis v. URS, Inc. - 11/7/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-35924. The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of the U.S. Department of Energy from the suit, affirmed the grant of summary judgment in URS Corp.'s favor, and reversed the grant of summary judgment for URS Energy & Construction, Inc. in an action brought by a URS Energy employee alleging violations of the Energy Reorganization Act whistleblower protection provision, concerning cleanup efforts of nuclear waste at the Hanford Nuclear Site in Washington state.

State of Alaska v. Department of Agriculture

<> State of Alaska v. Department of Agriculture - 11/7/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-5147, Consolidated with 13-5150, 13-5151. Regarding the Roadless Rule which  prohibited road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting on millions of acres of national forest lands, including vast swaths of national forest land in Alaska. The Panel ruled: "This case has an unusual procedural background, and our holding is accordingly narrow. We reverse the judgment of the District Court dismissing Alaska's complaint as untimely, and we remand to the District Court for consideration of Alaska's challenges to the Roadless Rule."

In Re: Deepwater Horizon

<> In Re: Deepwater Horizon - 11/5/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 12-30883. B.P. Exploration & Production, Inc. (BP) and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) filed petitions for en banc rehearing affirming the lower court's grant of partial summary judgment. The full Panel considered the arguments and said "Appellants' arguments fail to persuade us that we erred or need to alter our decision to affirm the district court's grant of partial summary judgment."

American Whitewater v. Tidwell

<> American Whitewater v. Tidwell - 11/5/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case No. 13-1960, 13-2016, & 13-2017. The case involves a 57 miles stretch of the Chattooga River, 432 acres of adjacent land designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA). American Whitewater, Plaintiff-Appellant, and others argue that the Forest Service should not allow "floating" on some or all portions of the river under the WSRA. The district court rejected the challenges and the Panel agreed with the district court's well-reasoned opinion and affirmed.