Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. US Forest Service

<> Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. US Forest Service - 6/17/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35624. The panel affirmed the district court's holding that the United States Forest Service violated Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act when it failed to reinitiate consultation after the United States Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat for the Canada lynx on National Forest land; affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief to Cottonwood Environmental Law Center; and remanded to provide Cottonwood an opportunity to make an evidentiary showing that specific projects would likely cause irreparable damage to its members' interests.

South Carolina Coastal League v. US Army Corps of Engineers

<> South Carolina Coastal League v. US Army Corps of Engineers - 6/17/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Case No. 14-1796. The League brought the present action against various parties under federal law to stop what it fears will be significant degradation to 485 acres of freshwater wetlands and its conversion to saltwater wetlands.      The Appeals Court affirmed the district court's order dismissing this action as moot and affirmed the district court's denial of the League's motion seeking leave to amend its First Amended Complaint.

Aera Energy LLC v. FERC

<> Aera Energy LLC v. FERC – 6/16/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 13-1138 & 13-1303. Petitioners Aera Energy LLC and several other natural gas and transportation companies seek review of different aspects of seven orders issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission during rate proceedings.       The Appeals Court concludes that the Commission complied with the Natural Gas Act and court precedents and responded meaningfully to petitioners' objections and articulated a rational explanation for its decisions -- the petitions are denied.

Volvo Powertrain Corp v. United States

<> Volvo Powertrain Corp v. United States - 6/15/15. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 14-748. Appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. (12-5234). Petition denied. Regarding a $72 million in penalties against Petitioner for 7,262 engines that were neither built nor sold in America, and whether EPA exercised extraterritorial enforcement authority not granted to it under the Clean Air Act USA v. Volvo Powertrain Corporation, Case No. D.C. Circuit opinion U.S. Brief to the Supreme Court Volvo Powertrain Brief to the Supreme Cout Supreme Court upholds $72M Volvo Powertrain verdict

Pesticide Action Network v. U.S. EPA

<> Pesticide Action Network v. U.S. EPA - 6/10/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. In response to a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resource Defense Council, the panel directed the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to file a status report with the Court no later than June 30, 2015 concerning EPA's response to petitioners' 2007 administrative petition requesting that EPA cancel registration for the pesticide chlorpyrifos and retained jurisdiction over the case. Court Orders EPA to Decide to Act on Dangerous Pesticide

Alaska Wilderness League v. Sally Jewell (U.S. DOI)

<> Alaska Wilderness League v. Sally Jewell (U.S. DOI) - 6/11/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35866. The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal defendants and Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. and Shell Offshore Inc. in an action brought by environmental groups alleging that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement acted unlawfully in approving two of Shell's oil spill response plans for its oil leases in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas on Alaska's Arctic coast.

In Re: Murray Energy Corp.

<> In Re: Murray Energy Corp. - 6/9/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-1112, 14-1151 & 14-1146. The Appeals Court said, "Petitioners are champing at the bit to challenge EPA's anticipated rule restricting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. . . They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule. . .      "We do not have authority to review proposed agency rules. In short, we deny the petitions for review and the petition for a writ of prohibition because the complained-of agency action is not final." [There was a separate concurring opinion]