Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) disapproval of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) submitted by Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to address interstate air pollution. The EPA disapproved these SIPs, arguing that they did not meet the requirements of the Good Neighbor Provision, which mandates that states prevent their emissions from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of national air quality standards in downwind states.The lower courts had not previously reviewed this case. The case was directly brought to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where the petitioners sought to vacate the EPA's disapprovals. The petitioners argued that the EPA's actions were arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with the CAA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petitions for review from Louisiana and Texas, finding that the EPA's disapprovals were justified based on the states' own data and interpretations of the Good Neighbor Provision. The court concluded that the EPA had reasonably considered the relevant issues and provided adequate explanations for its decisions.However, the court granted the petition for review from Mississippi, vacated the EPA's disapproval of Mississippi's SIP, and remanded the matter to the EPA. The court found that the EPA's disapproval of Mississippi's SIP was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on updated data that was not available to Mississippi at the time of its SIP submission. The court held that the EPA failed to reasonably explain its decision to use this updated data in an outcome-determinative manner. View "Texas v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

Several plaintiffs, including United States Sugar Corporation, Okeelanta Corporation, and Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, challenged the United States Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the Everglades Agricultural Area Project (EAA Project). The plaintiffs argued that the Corps violated the Administrative Procedure Act by using the wrong water supply baseline in its Savings Clause analysis and by failing to conduct a separate analysis for the standalone operation of the storm water treatment area (STA). They also claimed that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not evaluating the effects of the standalone STA operation in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).The Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the Corps. The district court held that the Corps did not violate the Savings Clause by using the LORS 2008 baseline instead of the year 2000 baseline, as the water supply loss reflected in LORS 2008 was due to structural integrity issues with the Herbert Hoover Dike, not an implementation of the Plan. The court also found that the Corps' decision to use LORS 2008 was reasonable and that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on the plaintiffs' first claim, agreeing that the Corps did not violate the Savings Clause. The court also affirmed the district court's decision on the plaintiffs' third claim, holding that the Corps did not violate NEPA by failing to include the standalone STA operation in its EIS, as the standalone STA had independent utility and could be evaluated in a supplemental EIS.However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision on the plaintiffs' second claim, finding that it was not ripe for review because the Corps had not made a final decision authorizing the standalone operation of the STA. The court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the second claim for lack of finality and ripeness. View "United States Sugar Corp. v. Army Corps of Engineers" on Justia Law

The case involves a project to build a four-story hotel and extend a road in the City of Clearlake. The City approved the project after adopting a mitigated negative declaration (MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Koi Nation of Northern California, a Native American tribe, challenged the approval, alleging the City failed to comply with CEQA, particularly the provisions added by Assembly Bill No. 52, which requires consideration of tribal cultural resources and meaningful consultation with tribes.The trial court denied Koi Nation's petition for writ of mandate, concluding that the City had not violated CEQA’s consultation requirements because there was no written request from Koi Nation to invoke the right to consultation. The court also rejected Koi Nation’s claims regarding the City’s failure to investigate and mitigate the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that Koi Nation had indeed requested consultation in writing, as required by CEQA. The court determined that the City failed to conduct meaningful consultation, as it did not engage in a process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of Koi Nation, nor did it seek agreement on mitigation measures. The court concluded that the City’s failure to comply with CEQA’s consultation requirements constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion, as it omitted material necessary for informed decision-making and public participation.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and judgment, instructing the superior court to issue a writ of mandate setting aside the City’s MND and related project approvals. The court did not address Koi Nation’s other arguments, including the need for an environmental impact report (EIR). View "Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake" on Justia Law

The case involves the Organization of Professional Aviculturists, Inc. and the Lineolated Parakeet Society, who sought to import two captive-bred parrot species, the Cactus conure and the green form of the Lineolated parakeet, from certain European countries. The Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act of 1992 prohibits the importation of these species unless they are added to a list of approved species. The plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to add these species to the list but only those bred in specific European countries. The Service denied the petitions, stating that the Act and its regulations do not allow for species to be approved on a country-by-country basis.The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit, arguing that the Service's denial violated the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the claims with prejudice, reasoning that the Act requires the Service to consider species as a whole, not on a country-by-country basis. The court found that this interpretation aligned with the agency's long-standing interpretation and the statute's structure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the text, structure, and purpose of the Act require the Service to determine whether to exempt a species as a whole from the importation moratorium, not on a country-by-country basis. The court found that the Act's language and structure, including the requirement to consider regulatory and enforcement mechanisms in all countries of origin, support this interpretation. The court also noted that the Service's consistent interpretation since 1994 further supports this conclusion. Therefore, the Service's denial of the petitions did not violate the APA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Organization of Professional Aviculturists, Inc. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" on Justia Law

Maryland and South Carolina filed lawsuits in state courts against 3M Company and other chemical manufacturers, alleging contamination of their waterways with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The states filed separate complaints for PFAS contamination from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) and non-AFFF products, explicitly disclaiming any connection between the two in their non-AFFF complaints.In the District of Maryland, 3M removed Maryland's non-AFFF complaint to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, arguing that PFAS from its Military AFFF production was indistinguishably commingled with PFAS from its non-AFFF products. The district court remanded the case, giving dispositive effect to Maryland's disclaimer and concluding that 3M's federal work was not implicated. Similarly, in the District of South Carolina, 3M removed South Carolina's non-AFFF complaint, but the district court also remanded, crediting the state's disclaimer and finding no connection to 3M's federal work.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that the states' disclaimers were not dispositive in determining the connection between 3M's federal work and the charged conduct. The court concluded that 3M plausibly alleged that PFAS contamination from its Military AFFF production was related to the states' claims, satisfying the nexus requirement for federal officer removal. The court vacated the district courts' decisions and remanded for further consideration of whether 3M met the other elements for federal officer removal, including acting under a federal officer and having a colorable federal defense. View "State of Maryland v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

The City and County of San Francisco operates two combined wastewater treatment facilities that process both wastewater and stormwater. During heavy precipitation, these facilities may discharge untreated water into the Pacific Ocean or San Francisco Bay. In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a renewal permit for San Francisco's Oceanside facility, adding two "end-result" requirements. These requirements prohibited discharges that contribute to violations of water quality standards and discharges that create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined by California law. San Francisco challenged these provisions, arguing they exceeded the EPA's statutory authority.The California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the EPA approved the final Oceanside NPDES permit. San Francisco appealed to the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board, which rejected the challenge. The City then petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit, which denied the petition. The Ninth Circuit held that the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the EPA to impose any limitations necessary to ensure water quality standards are met in receiving waters.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the CWA does not authorize the EPA to include "end-result" provisions in NPDES permits. The Court reasoned that determining the specific steps a permittee must take to meet water quality standards is the EPA's responsibility, and Congress has provided the necessary tools for the EPA to make such determinations. The Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's decision, emphasizing that the EPA must set specific rules for permittees to follow rather than imposing broad end-result requirements. View "City and County of San Francisco v. EPA" on Justia Law

The Center for Biological Diversity and 350 Colorado challenged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that partially approved Colorado’s plan to reduce ozone pollution. The Clean Air Act required Colorado to lower ozone levels by July 2021, but the state failed to meet this deadline. Petitioners argued that the EPA’s approval of Colorado’s plan violated the Clean Air Act in three ways: by approving the plan after the deadline, by including state-only emissions reductions, and by violating the anti-backsliding provision.The EPA approved Colorado’s reasonable-further-progress demonstration and motor-vehicle-emissions budget, determining that the state showed emissions reductions of at least three percent per year from 2018 to 2020. The EPA also found that the SIP’s projected emissions reductions were based on creditable, federally enforceable measures and complied with the anti-backsliding mandate. Petitioners argued that the EPA’s approval was unlawful because the state failed to attain the required ozone levels by the deadline and included non-federally enforceable control measures in its calculations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the EPA did not act unlawfully in approving Colorado’s reasonable-further-progress demonstration after the state missed its attainment deadline. The court found that reasonable-further-progress demonstrations are distinct from attainment demonstrations and that the EPA’s approval was based on compliance with reasonable-further-progress requirements. The court also held that the EPA’s approval of Colorado’s motor-vehicle-emissions budget was lawful, as it was consistent with reasonable-further-progress requirements. Additionally, the court found that the EPA’s approval did not violate the anti-backsliding provision, as the SIP revisions would not increase emissions and would not hinder attainment.The court denied the petition for review, upholding the EPA’s approval of Colorado’s plan. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Steve Shehyn, owns a 20-acre avocado orchard in Moorpark, California. He alleged that sediment from the Ventura County Public Works Agency and Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1's (collectively, the District) water delivery system permanently damaged his irrigation pipes and orchard. The plaintiff claimed that the sediment was a direct result of the District's water supply facilities' plan, design, maintenance, and operation.The trial court sustained the District's demurrer to the plaintiff's first amended complaint, which included causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, and inverse condemnation. The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the breach of contract and negligence claims but sustained the demurrer without leave to amend for the inverse condemnation claim, citing that the plaintiff "invited" the District's water onto his property. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, maintaining the inverse condemnation claim unchanged and indicating his intent to seek a writ of mandamus. The trial court entered judgment for the District after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his contract and negligence claims without prejudice.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded his claim for inverse condemnation. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations that the District's water delivery system delivered a disproportionate amount of sediment to his property, causing damage, supported a claim for inverse condemnation. The court disagreed with the trial court's reliance on Williams v. Moulton Niguel Water Dist., stating that the issue of whether the plaintiff "invited" the water goes to the merits of the claim, not its viability at the pleading stage. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter a new order overruling the demurrer. View "Shehyn v. Ventura County Public Works Agency" on Justia Law

The case involves Protect the Gallatin River (PTGR) appealing a decision by the Gallatin County Floodplain Administrator to issue a floodplain permit for the Riverbend Glamping Getaway project proposed by Jeff and Jirina Pfeil. The project includes developing a campground with non-permanent structures on an island in the Gallatin River. PTGR argued that the public's right to participate was violated and that the Floodplain Administrator's decision was erroneous.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court of Gallatin County reviewed the case and issued an order on November 13, 2023, resolving competing summary judgment motions. The court denied PTGR's motions for partial summary judgment, granted summary judgment in favor of Gallatin County and the Pfeils regarding PTGR's complaint, and addressed other related claims. PTGR then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Floodplain Administrator did not violate PTGR's right to participate, as the public was given a reasonable opportunity to comment, and the decision not to re-open public comment was not arbitrary or capricious. The court also found that the Floodplain Administrator's participation in the appeal process before the Commission was appropriate and lawful, as it did not involve post hoc rationalizations. Finally, the court held that the Floodplain Administrator's decision complied with the Gallatin County Floodplain Regulations and was not an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment orders. View "Protect the Gallatin v. Gallatin Co." on Justia Law

A resident of Alaska filed a lawsuit challenging amendments to the State’s predator control program. The resident claimed that after the changes were implemented, she observed a noticeable decrease in the brown bear population at Katmai National Park, where she frequently visited to view bears. She argued that the Board of Game violated its constitutional and statutory duties by not providing adequate notice and opportunities for public input before adopting the changes, which expanded the program to target bears.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, dismissed the complaint, concluding that the resident lacked standing and was not entitled to a declaratory judgment on the validity of the regulatory change. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to the Board of Game and the Commissioner of the Department of Fish & Game.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and held that the resident had standing because she demonstrated an injury to her interest in viewing bears at Katmai National Park, which was sufficient to show standing. The court also concluded that she was entitled to a declaratory judgment on the validity of the regulation. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of her complaint, vacated the associated award of attorney’s fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bittner v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law