In the News

• Date: 01 August 2024

Copyright © 2024 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org. 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 June 2024. They are listed under the following categories: Air, Climate Change, Energy, Governance, Natural Resources, Toxic Substances, Water, and Wildlife. The summaries are then arranged alphabetically by case name within each category. To access ELR's entire collection of court cases and summaries, visit https://www.elr.info/judicial. AIR Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency , No. 23A349, 54 ELR 20095 (U.S. June 27, 2024). he U.S. Supreme Court, 5-4, granted three states’ and several industry groups’ applications to stay enforcement of EPA’s 2023 rule issuing a federal implementation plan (FIP) for 23 states whose SIPs the Agency determined had failed to adequately address new air quality standards for ozone levels under the CAA’s “good neighbor” provision. EPA based the FIP on which emission control measures would maximize cost-efectiveness in improving ozone levels in downwind states and on the assumption the FIP would apply to all covered states. It also designed the plan to be severable, such that if any state dropped out, the plan would apply unchanged to the remaining states. Lower courts subsequently stayed 12 of the SIP disapprovals, precluding EPA from imposing the FIP on those states. he applicants challenged the FIP, arguing the decision to apply the plan after 12 states had “dropped out” was arbitrary and capricious, and sought to stay any efort to enforce the FIP against them pending appeal. he Court found EPA did not address whether and how measures found to maximize cost-efectiveness in achieving downwind ozone air quality improvements with the participation of 23 states would continue to do so when fewer states were subject to the plan, despite the concern having been raised during the public comment period. Finding the applicants were likely to succeed on their claim, it stayed enforcement of the rule pending disposition of petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit and any petitions for writ of certiorari. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and homas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Barrett, J., iled a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, JJ., joined. ENERGY Tohono O’odham Nation v. United States Department of Interior , No. CV-24-00034-TUC-JGZ, 54 ELR 20083 (D. Ariz. June 6, 2024). A district court granted BLM’s motion to dismiss tribes’ and environmental groups’ challenge to the Bureau’s approval of a 550-mile transmission line route through the San Pedro Valley. Plaintifs argued BLM violated the National Historic Preservation Act by failing to identify the San Pedro Valley as a “traditional cultural property” and failing to meaningfully consult with the tribes, and sought to vacate the Bureau’s limited notices to proceed (LNTPs) and underlying record of decision (ROD) in order to reroute the line out of the valley. BLM moved to dismiss. he court found plaintifs failed to state a claim because their challenges to the 2015 ROD were time barred by the six-year APA statute of limitations. Further, the 2023 LNTPs were not challengeable because they did not constitute “inal agency action.” It dismissed the suit. GOVERNANCE CLIMATE CHANGE Multnomah, County of v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , No. 3:23-cv-01213-YY, 54 ELR 20085 (D. Or. June 10, 2024). A district court adopted a magistrate judge’s indings and recommendations to remand to state court a climate liability lawsuit brought by an Oregon county against oil and gas companies. he county initially sued in state court, arguing the companies failed to warn consumers about the negative efects of their products. he companies removed the suit to federal court on federal jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction grounds, and the county moved to remand. he magistrate judge found the court did not have federal jurisdiction over the suit and that the companies failed to show one of the defendants was fraudulently joined, and recommended that the county’s motion be granted. he court adopted the judge’s indings and recommendations, and remanded the suit. BlueRibbon Coalition v. Garland , No. 4:23-cv-00505-DCN, 54 ELR 20090 (D. Idaho June 20, 2024). A district court granted in part and denied in part an outdoor recreation group’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the National Park Service’s (NPS’) regulations governing commercial ilming on public lands. he group argued the regulations’ land use fee and permitting requirements violated the First Amendment. 54 ELR 10696 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 8-2024 Copyright © 2024 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org. he court found the group persuasively argued the regulations sufered from content-based discrimination in light of a speaker-based distinction, and that while NPS had compelling reasons for the requirements, it was questionable whether NPS’ methods were suiciently tailored to those reasons. It preliminarily enjoined the regulations as applied to the group. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , Nos. 22-451 and 22-1219, 54 ELR 20097 (U.S. June 28, 2024). he U.S. Supreme Court, 6-3, held the APA requires courts to exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority and that courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous, overruling Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837 (1984), in two lawsuits concerning application of the Chevron framework to a rule promulgated by NMFS pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). In both suits, commercial ishing companies challenged the rule, arguing the MSA did not authorize the agency to mandate that they pay for observers required by a ishery management plan. Two district courts granted summary judgment for NMFS, deferring to the agency’s interpretation under Chevron . Two appellate courts airmed, deferring to the agency’s interpretation as a “reasonable” construction of the MSA in one of the suits and as not “exceed[ing] the bounds of the permissible” in the other. he Supreme Court granted certiorari in both, limiting the question to whether Chevron should be overruled or clariied. he Court found the deference Chevron required of courts reviewing agency action could not be squared with the APA, which directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment.” According to the majority, “ Chevron deies the command of the APA that ‘the reviewing court’—not the agency whose action it reviews—is to ‘decide all relevant questions of law’ and ‘interpret . . . statutory provisions,’” and when it comes to statutory ambiguities, even those involving technical or scientiic questions that fall within an agency’s area of expertise, “Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions.” It overruled Chevron , vacated the appellate judgments in both suits, and remanded for further proceedings. Roberts, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which homas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. homas, J., and Gorsuch, J., iled concurring opinions. Kagan, J., iled a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined, and in which Jackson, J., joined as it applies to No. 22-1219. Jackson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case in No. 22-451. Mid Valley Pipeline Co., L.L.C. v. Rodgers , No. 23-60536, 54 ELR 20082 (5th Cir. June 5, 2024). he Fifth Circuit airmed dismissal of a constitutional challenge brought by a pipeline company concerning a 1949 permit a local levee board granted to the company to construct and maintain two pipelines across a levee in Mayersville, Mississippi. he company argued the board violated the Contracts Clause by imposing annual pipeline crossing fees on the company that were not contemplated by the permit because the permit was a contract that the board could not modify. he appellate court found the permit’s straightforward, unambiguous text made clear that the parties lacked the mutuality of assent to have entered a contract, and thus that the company’s claim necessarily failed. It airmed dismissal. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy , No. 22-859, 54 ELR 20096 (U.S. June 27, 2024). he U.S. Supreme Court, 6-3, held the Seventh Amendment entitled an investment advisor to a jury trial in an enforcement action initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking civil penalties for securities fraud. he SEC adjudicated the matter administratively, and determined the advisor had committed securities violations and levied a $300,000 civil penalty. he advisor petitioned for review, and the Fifth Circuit vacated the order on the ground that the agency adjudication violated the advisor’s right to a jury trial. he Supreme Court found the action implicated the Seventh Amendment because the SEC’s antifraud provisions replicated common-law fraud and it was well established that common-law claims must be heard by a jury; and that the “public rights” exception did not apply because the action here did not fall within any of the distinctive areas involving governmental prerogatives where the Court has concluded that a matter may be resolved outside of an Article III court, without a jury. It held the Seventh Amendment applied and a jury was required. he Court afirmed the Fifth Circuit ruling and remanded for further proceedings. Roberts, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which homas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., iled a concurring opinion, in which homas, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., iled a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan and Jackson, JJ., joined. NATURAL RESOURCES Earthworks v. United States Department of the Interior , No....