Leonard Ameika v. Keith Moss

<> Leonard Ameika v. Keith Moss - 10/5/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 14-1459. In this non-precedential decision the Panel explains, "Plaintiffs, thirty-five residents of Duryea, Pennsylvania, appeal the District Court's dismissal of their substantive due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants, the Borough of Duryea, the mayor of Duryea, and various borough officials, for failure to prevent flood damage to plaintiffs' properties during Hurricane Irene. Because plaintiffs failed to allege that their harms stemmed from any affirmative actions taken by defendants, or that defendants' actions "shocked the conscience," we will affirm."

Arizona v. Ashton Company Incorporated Contractors and Engineers, et al.

<> Arizona v. Ashton Company Incorporated Contractors and Engineers, et al. - Supreme Court Docket No. 14-1019, Vide 14-972. The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to hear the Ninth Circuit case finding that district courts must more closely analyze states' CERCLA settlements ". . . comparing 'the proportion of total projected costs to be paid by the [settling parties] with the proportion of liability attributable to them.'" State of Arizona v. Raytheon Co, et al. - 8/1/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-15691.

NRDC v. EPA

<> NRDC v. EPA - 10/5/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals. Second Circuit, Case No. The Appeals Court explains & rules, "Four environmental organizations petition for review of a Vessel General Permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2013 under Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1).  The permit regulates the discharge of ballast water from ships, a primary cause of the spread of invasive species from one body of water to another.  Petitioners contend that the Environmental Protection Agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the permit, and request that it be set aside.  We agree, in part.   Accordingly, we grant the petition for review in part and deny it in part, and remand to the Environmental Protection Agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  We do not vacate the Vessel General Permit, but allow it to remain in effect until the issuance of a new Vessel General Permit." Appeals Court Rules EPA's Vessel General Permit Not Adequate Court orders EPA to revise ship ballast dumping regulations

Sturgeon v. Masica

<> Supreme Court To Hear Case On National Park Service Regulatory Control - 10/01/15. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Sturgeon v. Masica, Case No.14-1209. The case addresses whether Section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 prohibits the National Park Service from exercising regulatory control over State, Native Corporation, and private Alaska land physically located within the boundaries of the National Park System. Sturgeon v. Masica - 10/6/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-36165.

Appeals Court Rejects Attempts to Continue Premature Litigation against the Proposed Clean Power Plan

<> Appeals Court Rejects Attempts to Continue Premature Litigation against the Proposed Clean Power Plan - The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has denied several petitions for an en banc reconsideration to its decision to reject lawsuits challenging the Administration's proposed Clean Power Plan. Clean Power Plan case resources before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

National Parks Conservation Association n v. U.S. EPA

<> National Parks Conservation Association n v. U.S. EPA - 9/29/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 14-3147. Environmental groups petitioned EPA's approval of Pennsylvania's SIP regarding atmospheric visibility in national parks and wilderness areas after the state concluded that the costs associated with the controls outweighed the limited visibility improvements they would produce.       The Appeals Court granted the petition in part and deny it in part, and remand the matter to the EPA for further consideration. The Panel said, "In the end, the EPA has identified a host of problems with Pennsylvania's BART analysis. What it has not done, however, is provide a sufficient explanation as to why it overlooked these problems and approved Pennsylvania's SIP."

Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps

<> Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps - 9/29/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-5205. The Panel said the central question in this appeal is the scope of environmental review the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required before a particular oil pipeline was built -- specifically the Flanagan South oil pipeline pumps crude oil across 593 miles of American heartland from Illinois to Oklahoma and owned by Enbridge Pipelines (FSP), LLC, (Enbridge).      On appeal, of the district court denial of preliminary injunctive relief, Sierra Club principally contends that the district court erred by failing to require the agencies to analyze and invite public comment on the environmental impact of the whole pipeline under NEPA, including the lengthy portions crossing private land and not otherwise subject to federal approvals.      The Appeals Court ruled, "We hold that the federal government was not required to conduct NEPA analysis of the entirety of the Flanagan South pipeline, including portions not subject to federal control or permitting. . . agencies were not obligated also to analyze the impact of the construction and operation of the entire pipeline. . . the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sierra Club's motion to supplement and amend its complaint, because the proposed new allegations would not have affected the dispositive legal analysis."