Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Jewell (Interior Dept)

<> Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Jewell (Interior Dept) - 2/29/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-35619, consolidated with 13-35662, 13-35666, 13-35667, 13-35669. In 2009, FWS proposed to designate an area of Alaska's coast and waters as critical habitat for the polar bear. The proposal drew fire from oil and gas trade associations, several Alaska Native corporations and villages, and the State of Alaska claiming the habitat designation was unjustifiably large, and FWS had failed to follow ESA procedure.      The panel reversed the district court's judgment vacating the United States Fish & Wildlife Service ("FWS") designation of critical habitat in Alaska for the polar bear, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act; affirmed the district court's denial of cross-appeal claims; and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of FWS.

Certiorari denied in American Farm Bureau v. EPA

 

<> Certiorari denied in American Farm Bureau v. EPA - American Farm Bureau v. EPA (SupCt docket 15-599), a petition for certiorari was denied by the High Court. The denial leaves the 7/6/15 Third Circuit opinion in place which upheld U.S. EPA's plan to clean up Chesapeake Bay,      The high interest case involving many states and trade associations including Michigan, challenged EPA's "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment that can be released into the Chesapeake Bay. Third Circuit Opinion: American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA

Arizona DEQ v. U.S. EPA

<> Arizona DEQ v. U.S. EPA -  2/24/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 13-70366 & 13-70410. The panel denied consolidated petitions for review of a Final Rule, promulgated by U.S. EPA under the Clean Air Act, that partially disapproved Arizona's regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) – setting forth emission limits and other measures – and issued a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in place of the disapproved SIP elements.

State of New Mexico v. Trujillo

<> State of New Mexico v. Trujillo - 2/19/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 15-2047. Elisa Trujillo holds a domestic well permit that allows her to divert the Basin's underground water. During an individual adjudication, she and the State disputed her water rights. In 2010, the special master granted summary judgment in favor of the State. On appeal, she presents no developed argument challenging the special master's summary judgment order that served as a basis for the 2015 order. The Panel affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the State.

In Re: U.S. DOD & EPA & the Definition Of WOTUS

<> In Re: U.S. DOD & EPA & the Definition Of WOTUS - 2/22/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Consolidated Case Nos. 15-3751 /3799/ 3817/ 3820/ 3822/ 3823/ 3831/ 3837/ 3839/ 3850/ 3853/ 3858/ 3885/ 3887/ 3948/ 4159/ 4162/ 4188/ 4211/ 4234/ 4305/ 4404.      This multi-circuit case consists of numerous consolidated petitions challenging the validity of the "Clean Water Rule" recently published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("the Agencies"). The Clean Water Rule is intended to clarify the scope of "the waters of the United States" [WOTUS] subject to protection under the Clean Water Act. The Act provides that certain specified actions of the EPA Administrator are reviewable directly in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. Because of uncertainty about whether the Agencies' adoption of the Clean Water Rule is among these specified actions, parties challenging the Rule have filed petitions in both district courts and circuit courts across the country. Many of the petitions have been transferred to the Sixth Circuit for consolidation in this action. Many of the petitioners and other parties now move to dismiss the very petitions they filed invoking this court's jurisdiction, contending this court lacks jurisdiction to review the Clean Water Rule.      The movants find support for their position in the language of the Clean Water Act's judicial review provisions, which purport to define circuit court jurisdiction specifically and narrowly. Over the last 35 years, however, courts, including the Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit, have favored a "functional" approach over a "formalistic" one in construing these provisions. These precedents support the Agencies' position that this court does have jurisdiction. The district courts that have confronted the jurisdictional question in this litigation have arrived at conflicting answers.1 For the reasons that follow I conclude that Congress's manifest purposes are best fulfilled by our exercise of jurisdiction to review the instant petitions for review of the Clean Water Rule.      Separate concurring and dissenting opinions were filed.

Sanders v. Energy Northwest

<> Sanders v. Energy Northwest - 2/12/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No.14-35368. In a split decision, the majority affirmed the district court's summary judgment on a claim of whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Energy Reorganization Act, the panel held that the plaintiff did not engage in protected activity when he objected to the security level designation given to an internal "condition report" of a safety procedure violation concerning access badges.       The dissenting Judge wrote that the majority wrongly narrowed the scope of the Energy Reorganization Act by rejecting the whistleblower claim on the basis that the safety problems were not overlooked, neglected, or concealed by management and were not concrete and ongoing issues.

Reece v. AES Corporation

<> Reece v. AES Corporation - 2/9/16. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 14-7010. Plaintiffs' class action suit alleged that several companies were responsible for environmental pollution stemming from the generation and disposal of coal-combustion waste and fluid waste from oil and gas drilling.       Plaintiffs challenge the district court's denial of their two motions for remand and also its dismissal of their amended complaint. The Panel ruled: "Because we agree with the district court's disposition of the remand motions and conclude that Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege the element of injury in their amended complaint, we affirm the district court's judgment."