Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Clean Water Act (3)
- Mining (3)
- CWA (2)
- Endangered (2)
- Environmental (2)
-
- Environmental Protection Agency (2)
- Extinction (2)
- Species (2)
- Tribal (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Administrative Procedure Act (1)
- Agency (1)
- Air impact analysis (1)
- Air pollution (1)
- Alaska Oil & Gas Association v. Pritzker (1)
- Appalachian Streams (1)
- Army Corps of Engineers (1)
- Army corps (1)
- Army corps of engineers (1)
- BLM (1)
- Baselines (1)
- Beneficial interest (1)
- Bureau of Land Management (1)
- Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl (1)
- City of flint (1)
- Clean Air Act (1)
- Clean Air Council v. Pruitt (1)
- Climate (1)
- Coal company (1)
- Corps (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Mays V. City Of Flint, Michigan, Nathan A. Burke
Mays V. City Of Flint, Michigan, Nathan A. Burke
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Mays v. City of Flint Michigan, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality employees removed a class action against them in the Michigan state court to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute. This court ruled in favor of the residents of Flint, determining that the federal officer removal statute did not give the federal court jurisdiction over a state agency simply because the agency must follow federal rules. The court held that Michigan Department of Environmental Quality employees could not have been “acting under” the federal government even though the state agency’s enforcement authority could be trumped by the …
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
United States V. Osage Wind, Llc, Summer Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Osage Nation, as owner of the beneficial interest in its mineral estate, issues federally-approved leases to persons and entities who wish to conduct mineral development on its lands. After an energy-development company, Osage Wind, leased privately-owned surface lands within Tribal reservation boundaries and began to excavate minerals for purposes of constructing a wind farm, the United States brought suit on the Tribe’s behalf. In the ensuing litigation, the Osage Nation insisted that Osage Wind should have obtained a mineral lease from the Tribe before beginning its work. In its decision, the Tenth Circuit applied one of the Indian law …
Clean Air Council V. Pruitt, Oliver Wood
Clean Air Council V. Pruitt, Oliver Wood
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a motion for summary vacatur against the Environmental Protection Agency after environmental groups challenged the agency’s reconsideration of the Obama-era methane rule under the Clean Air Act. The court held that the EPA unlawfully issued a stay after it reconsidered the rule without proper authorization. The court vacated the EPA’s stay, one example of the Trump Administration unsuccessfully repealing Obama-era rulemaking.
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Lowell J. Chandler
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Lowell J. Chandler
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The ESA protects threatened or endangered species, and species likely to become threatened or endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of their range. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona overturned a Fish and Wildlife Service policy defining the significant portion of range language in the ESA. The policy interpretation limited ESA protections to apply only when a species faced risk of extinction throughout its entire range. The court deemed this policy impermissible because it effectively rendered the significant portion of range language meaningless. …
Yazzie V. Epa, Caitlin Buzzas
Yazzie V. Epa, Caitlin Buzzas
Public Land & Resources Law Review
No abstract provided.
Defenders Of Wildlife V. Zinke, Jacob R. Schwaller
Defenders Of Wildlife V. Zinke, Jacob R. Schwaller
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Wyoming was the final holdout of protections for wolves under the Endangered Species Act, and a recent decision by the United States Circuit for the District of Columbia has finally overturned those protections. After years of court battles, this decision marks the final adjudication removing federal protections, and places the management of the wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Area back in the hands of the states surrounding Yellowstone National Park. Complete deference to state regulatory systems may be a new trend in the adjudication of cases under the ESA, and this case could have significant impacts on future deference given …
Catskill Mountains Chapter Of Trout Unlimited, Inc. V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Benjamin W. Almy
Catskill Mountains Chapter Of Trout Unlimited, Inc. V. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Benjamin W. Almy
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Trout Unlimited’s effort to overturn the EPA’s Water Transfers Rule was stifled by the Second Circuit. The court’s comprehensive Chevron analysis determined that while the NPDES Water Transfers Rule may be at odds with the Clean Water Act’s mission, it was based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute’s ambiguous language, and therefore it did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act.
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition V. Fola Coal Company, Llc, Emily A. Slike
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition V. Fola Coal Company, Llc, Emily A. Slike
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Disregarding CWA regulations, WVDEP allowed for a state coal mining company, Fola, to discharge pollutants into the Stillhouse Branch without regard for water quality violations. Fola claimed that because it held a WV/NPDES permit, it was shielded from any liability so long as the company followed the permit’s provisions, even if its discharge violated CWA water quality standards.
Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno
Hawkes Co. V. United States Army Corps Of Engineers, Sarah M. Danno
Public Land & Resources Law Review
A peat mining company will not be required to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act to discharge dredged and fill material into wetlands. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota held that the United States Army Corps of Engineers fell short in its attempts to establish jurisdiction over the wetlands by twice failing to show a significant nexus existed between the wetlands and navigable waters. Further, the district court enjoined the Corps from asserting jurisdiction a third time because it would force the mining company through a “never ending loop” of administrative law.
Great Basin Resource Watch V. Bureau Of Land Management, Jody D. Lowenstein
Great Basin Resource Watch V. Bureau Of Land Management, Jody D. Lowenstein
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Great Basin Resource Watch v. Bureau of Land Management, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the BLM’s environmental review, finding that the agency based its approval of a mining project on unsupported reasoning, inaccurate information, and deficient analysis. In negating the action, the court held that the BLM failed to take the hard look required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Jody D. Lowenstein
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe V. U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Jody D. Lowenstein
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The Standing Rock Sioux’s effort to enjoin the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting of an oil pipeline was stifled by the United States District Court of the District of Columbia. In denying the preliminary injunction, the court held that the Tribe failed to show that the Corps violated the National Historic Preservation Act, and that the Tribe’s belated effort to litigate was futile after failing to participate in the consultation process.
Alaska Oil & Gas Association V. Pritzker, Benjamin W. Almy
Alaska Oil & Gas Association V. Pritzker, Benjamin W. Almy
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Alaska Oil & Gas Association v. Pritzker, the Ninth Circuit reversed the United States District Court for the District of Alaska’s decision to strike down the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (“NMFS”) listing of distinct population segments of the Pacific bearded seal. The court determined that the NMFS was in full compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and squarely rejected the district court’s demand for highly specific data pertaining to the projected effects of climate change on the bearded seal.