In case you missed it...
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
52 ELR 10498 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 62022
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT . . .
In the Courts
"In the Courts" contains full summaries of court cases reported in ELR Update during the month of April 2022. They are
listed under the following categories: Air, Climate Change, Land Use, Natural Resources, Toxic Substances, Water, and
Wildlife. The summaries are then arranged alphab etically by case name within each category. To access ELR's entire col-
lection of court cases and summar ies, visit https://www.elr.info/judicial.
AIR
PennEnvironment, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., No. 19-
484, 52 ELR 20040 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2022). A district
court denied environmental groups’ motion for part ial sum-
mary judgment in a CA A citizen suit brought against a steel
company concerning hydrogen sulde a nd sulfur dioxide
emissions at its production facilities in Pennsylva nia. e
groups argued the company repeated ly violated the CA A,
the Pennsylvania SIP, and Title V operating permits at three
plants. e company argued t he groups did not have standing
to challenge al l of the violations they alleged —over 12,000
days of exceeding emi ssion limits—becau se they had not
shown they had standi ng for e ach violation. e court found
that while it was not necessa ry for each group member to have
standing to sue for every v iolation alleged, it was necessar y for
some members to have standing for each violation, and t hat
the groups had not shown that their members’ injuries were
fairly traceable to al l of the alleged violations. It denied the
groups’ motion for partial summa ry judgment.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., No. 19-
1644, 52 ELR 20044 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2022). e Fourth
Circuit armed a dist rict court order that remanded to state
court the city of Baltimore’s climate change lawsuit again st
oil companies. e city al leged it sustained climate change-
related injuries, including an increa se in sea levels, storms,
oods, heatwaves , droughts, and ex treme precipitation, from
greenhouse gas pollution to which t he companies had sub-
stantially contributed. e di strict court found that none of
the companies’ grounds for removal justi ed retaining federal
jurisdiction, and remanded back to st ate court. e appellate
court had concluded it only had authority to review t he part
of the order decided under the federal ocer remova l statute,
and thus lacked jurisd iction to review the district court’s re-
jection of the companies’ other grounds. e U.S. Supreme
Court held that the appellate c ourt erred in concluding it was
not permitted to review all of t he district court’s order, va-
cated the decision, and remanded. e appellate court then
found that none of the companies’ bases for removal perm it-
ted the exercise of federal jurisd iction, and that Baltimore’s
claims did not belong in federa l court because the city relied
exclusively on state-law claims to remedy its injuries. It af-
rmed the district c ourt’s remand order.
San Mateo, County of v. Chevron Corp., Nos. 18-15499, 18-
15502, 18-15503, and 18-16376, 52 ELR 20049 (9th Cir.
Apr. 19, 2022). e Ninth Circuit again armed a district
court order that remanded to state cou rt several California
counties’ and cities’ lawsuit against oil and gas compan ies
alleging state-law claims arising f rom global warming. e
district court c onc lude d that none of the companies’ grounds
for removal—federal quest ion, federal enclave, federal ocer,
bankruptcy, and admir alty—were warra nted, and remanded
back to state court. e appellate court had armed t he dis-
trict court’s determination that there wa s no jurisdiction un-
der the federal ocer removal stat ute, and dismissed the rest
of the companies’ appeal for lack of jurisd iction. e U.S.
Supreme Court vacated the appellate cour t’s judgment, and
remanded in light of its ruli ng in BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City
Council of Baltimore, which held that a federal appeals court
is permitted to review a federa l judge’s entire remand order.
e appellate court then considered a ll of the companies’ bas-
es for removal, but rejected their interpretations of removal
jurisdiction and adhered to the long-sta nding principle that
federal courts shou ld narrowly limit their reach to protect the
jurisdiction of state courts. It armed the district court’s re-
mand order.
LAND USE
Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. Bushue, No. 3:19-cv-1550 -SI,
52 ELR 20039 (D. Or. Mar. 29, 2022). A district c ourt denied
environmental groups’ motion for a temporary restra ining or-
der in a challenge to BLM’s authorization of livestock gr azing
on pastures containing research natural areas (R NAs). e
groups argued BLM’s regulations required fencing to be in-
stalled to section o the R NAs so they would not be grazed,
and baseline data to be provided for rese arch into greater sage-
Copyright © 2022 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.
To continue reading
Request your trial