Environmental Law: Supreme Court Cases
Sponsored Links
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences Section 136v(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA) does not preclude States from providing a remedy to farmers and others who are injured as a result of a manufacturer's violation of FIFRA's labeling requirement.
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837 (1984) A key Supreme Court ruling defering to the EPA's interpretation of a statute if 1) it is unambiguous and 2) the agency's statutory interpretation is reasonable.
- Envtl. Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. In an enforcement action involving two air pollution control schemes to the Clean Air Act, summary judgment for respondent, coal-based power plant operator, is vacated as: 1) the Court of Appeals's reading of the 1980 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations, intended to align them with New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), was inconsistent with their terms and effectively invalidated them; and 2) any such result must be shown to comport with the Clean Air Act's restrictions on judicial review of EPA regulations for validity.
- Massachusetts v. Envtl. Prot. Agency In an action brought by states, groups, and organizations alleging the EPA abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate certain greenhouse gas emissions, a judgment finding that the EPA properly denied a petition for rule making is reversed where: 1) petitioners had standing to challenge the EPA's ruling; 2) the denial of a petition for rulemaking is reviewed to determine whether it was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;" 3) the EPA has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and 4) the EPA rejected the rulemaking petition on impermissible grounds, and on remand the EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.
- Nat'l Ass'n of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act does not effectively operate as a tenth criterion on which the EPA's transfer of certain permitting powers to state authorities under section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act must be conditioned.
- Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance The Bureau of Land Management's alleged failure to protect state lands from environmental damage caused by off-road vehicles was not remediable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- Rapanos v. U.S. In cases involving certain state wetlands lying near ditches or man-made drains that eventually empty into traditional navigable waters, judgments against petitioners-landowners are vacated and remanded for further proceedings as to whether the specific wetlands at issue possessed a significant nexus with navigable waters for purposes of regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
- S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Envtl. Prot. Operating a dam to produce hydroelectricity raises a potential for a discharge into the navigable waters of the United States. Thus, hydroelectric dams require state certification that water protection laws will not be violated for purposes of federal licensing under section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
- U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp. In the context of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which allows private parties to recover expenses associated with cleaning up contaminated sites, CERCLA section 107(a) provides so-called potentially responsible parties (PRPs) with a cause of action to recover costs from other PRPs.
- Virginia v. Maryland The Black-Jenkins Award, which established the boundaries of control of the Potomac River, gives Virginia sovereign authority, free from regulation by Maryland, to build improvements appurtenant to her shore and to withdraw water from the River, subject to the constraints of federal common law and the Award. Virginia did not lose her sovereign riparian rights by acquiescing in Maryland's regulation of her water withdrawal and waterway construction activities.
- Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. The Clean Air Act, at 42 USC 7409(b), does not permit the Administrator to consider implementation costs in setting national ambient air quality standards, nor does i
Ads by FindLaw