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.

NRDC v. USDOT

NRDC v. USDOT - 10/30/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 12-56467. The Panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal and state defendants in an action brought by environmental groups alleging that the defendants violated the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to properly evaluate and disclose the potential environmental impact of a planned expressway connecting the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the I-405 freeway.

National Oilseed Processors Assoc. v. OSHA

National Oilseed Processors Assoc. v. OSHA - 10/24/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 12-1228. Petitioners (and intervenor for petitioners), whose members include numerous businesses that handle and process grain and other agricultural products, seek vacatur of the Final Rule as it applies to combustible dust. The Panel denied the petition for review.