MS Comm. Environ. Quality v. EPA

<> MS Comm. Environ. Quality v. EPA - In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 12-1309 (consolidated with a number of cases). In these consolidated petitions, several states, counties, industrial entities and environmental organizations challenge the EPA's determination that certain geographic areas are, or are not, in "attainment" with the EPA's ground-level ozone NAAQS.      The Appeals Court ruled, ". . .because the EPA complied with the Constitution, reasonably interpreted the Act's critical terms and wholly satisfied—indeed, in most instances, surpassed—its obligation to engage in reasoned decision-making, we deny the consolidated petitions for review in their entirety." Appeals Court Upholds Clean-Up Zone for Dallas-Fort Worth Area Air Pollution

Sierra Club v. Bostick

<> Sierra Club v. Bostick - 5/29/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 14-6099. The case involves the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue nationwide permits under § 404(e) of the Clean Water Act to authorize activities involving discharge of dredged or fill material in U.S. waters and wetlands.      TransCanada Corporation proposed to rely on the nationwide permit to build an oil pipeline, the Gulf Coast Pipeline (the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline). Three environmental groups challenged the validity of the nationwide permit and verification letters.      The district court rejected these challenges and entered judgment for the defendants. The Appeals Court affirmed the entry of judgment in favor of the defendant Corps.

Sierra Club v. Bureau of Land Management

<> Sierra Club v. Bureau of Land Management - 5/28/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-1583. The panel affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the decision of the United States Bureau of Land Management to grant a right-of-way over federal land for a wind energy project developed on private land by intervenor North Sky River Energy, LLC.

Pebble LP v. U.S. EPA

<> Pebble LP v. U.S. EPA - 5/28/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 14-35845, Unpublished opinion. Plaintiffs-appellants Pebble Limited Partnership and Alaska Peninsula Corporation appeal from the district court's order dismissing their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the district court.

National Association of Home v. United States Fish & Wildlife

<> National Association of Home v. United States Fish & Wildlife – 5/26/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 14-5121. Four associations challenge consent decrees that require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine, in accordance with a settlement-defined schedule for action, whether 251 species should be listed as endangered or threatened. The Appeals Court rules, "Because the associations lack standing to raise their challenge, we affirm the district court's dismissal."

USA v. State of Ohio

<> USA v. State of Ohio - 5/21/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 13-4362. The United States appeals from the district court's denial of its motion for summary judgment and grant of the State of Ohio's and Buckingham Coal Company's motions for summary judgment in this action challenging Ohio's right to lease Buckingham the right to mine coal lying beneath land acquired for a flood control project.       The Appeals Court reverses the district court motion saying, "we conclude that Ohio lacked the authority to enter into the instant leases. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ohio and Buckingham and its denial of the United States' motion for summary judgment, and remand for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.

Committee for a Better Arvin v. U.S. EPA

<> Committee for a Better Arvin v. U.S. EPA - 5/20/15. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-73924 & 12-71332. Petitioners, a contingent of environmental and community groups, bring serious challenges to the State of California's plans to improve air quality in the San Joaquin Valley, an area with some of the worst air quality in the United States -- i.e. whether U.S. EPA erred in approving California's State Implementation Plans.      The Appeals Court ruled, "We hold that by approving California's plans even though the plans did not include the state-adopted mobile emissions standards on which those plans rely to achieve their emissions reductions goals, EPA violated the CAA. We also hold that EPA did not violate the CAA by not requiring inclusion of other state mechanisms in its plans, and that other control measures approved by EPA are enforceable commitments as the CAA requires."