NATURAL RESOURCES CASE LAW
American Electric v. Connecticut
In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision that a case alleging pollution by greenhouse gas emissions that was filed against the American Electric Power Company could proceed under a legal theory of common law nuisance.
The Supreme Court held that "It is altogether fitting that Congress designated an expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve as primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions. The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions. Federal judges lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in copingwith issues of this order." See generally Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 865–866 (1984).
The decision means that suits directed at regulation of greenhouse gas emissions should be decided based on the intentions of the Congress as opposed to piecemeal adjudication by the district courts via common law theories of nuisance or public trust doctrine.
PDF Document (175 KB)
Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Marvin Brown, et.al.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision that the so-called "silvicultural Rule," 40 C.F.R. § 122.27, did not exempt sediment run-off from logging roads and that any such sediment loaded stormwater run-off was subject to permitting as a point source of pollution under the Clean Water Act.
PDF Document (1,134 KB)
Wilderness Society v. USFS
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals discards the "federal defendant rule" in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cases. The Court reversed its previous posture that since NEPA was procedural and was implemented by the federal government that only the federal government could be named in a lawsuit challenging its NEPA based decisions. Noting that the federal defendant rule was counter to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the law of its sister circuits, the en banc Court found that intervention of right under Rule 24 was proper for a private party with a legally protectable interest that was affected by the government's NEPA review.
PDF Document (66 KB)
Monsanto Company, et. al. v. Geertson Seed Farms, et. al.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holding that it is impermissible to assume that injunction is an integral part of a cause of action arising from violations of NEPA. The traditional four-part test must be satisfied by an applicant for injunction; i.e., facts demonstrating that 1) the applicant has suffered an irreparable injury; 2) that remedies available at law are inadequate; 3) considering the balance of hardships on the plaintiff and defendant favors the applicant plaintiff; and 4) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
PDF Document (312 KB)
Minard Run Oil Company v. U.S. Forest Service
Plaintiffs contend that the Settlement Agreement and its subsequent implementation by Leanne Marten (“Marten”), the current Forest Supervisor for the AlleghenyNationalForest (“ANF”), which requires the application of NEPA to the processing of “Notices to Proceed” (“NTPs”) in connection with the exercise of privately held oil and gas rights in the ANF, is both substantively contrary to law and procedurally deficient
PDF Document (266 KB)
Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey
This interlocutory appeal concerns three United States Forest Service ("USFS") projects -- Empire, Slapjack and Basin -- that attempt to fund fire prevention activities in the Plumas National Forest in California by awarding logging contracts to private parties.
PDF Document (100 KB)
Siskiyou Regional Education v. USFS
Siskiyou Regional Education Project and intervenor miners Robert Barton ("Barton") and Gerald Hobbs appeal the district court's rulings in favor of the United States Forest Service on claims brought in connection with the Forest Service's interpretation of Mineral Management Standard and Guideline MM-1, a mining-related directive contained in the Forest Service's Northwest Forest Plan.
PDF Document (119 KB)
WildWest Institute v. Castaneda
WildWest Institute challenges the United States Forest Service's approval of nine timber sale and restoration projects in Montana's Kootenai National Forest, claiming violations of the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and Forest Service regulations. WildWest sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent environmental injury. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service.
PDF Document (121 KB)
