'Waters' Cases Belong in Federal District Court, Justices Rule
Business groups, 29 states, agricultural organizations and other industries scored a big victory Monday in their long-running challenges to the so-called "Waters of the United States" rule.
January 22, 2018 at 06:40 PM
2 minute read
Justice Sonia Sotomayor (June 17, 2015) Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL.
Business groups, 29 states, agricultural organizations and other industries scored a big victory Monday in their long-running challenges to the so-called “Waters of the United States” rule.
The justices in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense unanimously held that challenges to the Obama-era rule must be filed in federal district courts and not in federal appellate courts.
The 2015 Clean Water rule has been called one of the most consequential regulations ever promulgated under the Clean Water Act. The Trump administration's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has already announced it plans to repeal the rule and return to the pre-2015 definition of waters of the United States.
Thirty-one states and business and agriculture groups initially challenged the rule in eight appellate and 13 district courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit earlier imposed a nationwide stay on the rule's implementation after taking jurisdiction over the challenges.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous court Monday, rejected the government's arguments that the judicial review provisions in the Clean Water Act indicated that the challenges belonged in federal appellate court. “Here, Congress' intent is clear from the statutory text,” she said.
With the high court ruling, the Sixth Circuit injunction is no longer effective. “While today's decision may extend the timeline for litigation over the rule, the good news is that it should put the Clean Water Rule back into effect widely, ensuring clear and strong protections for our nation's waters,” said Jon Devine, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The decision was unsurprising except perhaps in its unanimity, said Schiff Hardin environmental partner Dan Deeb. “The opinion's analysis is predicated upon the Court's reading of the CWA's plain language and underlying legislative intent [of the act's section giving federal appellate courts direct judicial review],” he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court Justices Have 'Variety of Views' on Ethics, Kagan Says
Can Congress Tax Unrealized Gains as Income? Supreme Court May Decide
This Judge, Who Grew up in Miami-Dade, Just Had a Street Named After Her
Court Overturns $185M Fee Award for Quinn Emanuel in ACA Litigation
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250