Eighth Circuit: Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers v. Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion

Environment, FRCP

District Court injunction upheld, given procedural harms and risk to plaintiffs during the pendency of procedural review.

No error in determination that the project was part of a larger project.

Given the administrative and democratic aspects of the planning process the appropriate standard for merits was that the movant had a fair chance of ultimately prevailing.

Extraterritorial application of foreign state regulatory statute can be considered at the preliminary injunction stage, since the foreign state's interest (?) would be served by the use of the law.

Multistate nature means that Dormant Commerce Clause doesn't bar state statute.

Public interest allowed the injunction to issue without payment of a bond.

Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers  v.  Fargo-Moorhead Flood Diversion

Eighth Circuit: State of Nebraska v. EPA

Environment, Administrative

Agency's lack of deference to state findings on costs accrued by different methods of pollution abatement was per se not an abuse of discretion, given that the Act contemplates more than ministerial approval.

Federal agency's regional rule that incorporates a national standard is not barred from review as a national rule, since the agency has not found it to be a national rule.  The expertise involved mandates deference to the agency's findings, which are not an abuse of its discretion.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/02/123084P.pdf

DC Circuit: In re: Idaho Conservation League, et al.

Administrative, environment

Plaintiff has standing, as he lives near a mine, and regulations would incentivize reduced emissions and mean quicker cleanups.

Other plaintiffs have standing due to living near rivers.

Putative intervenors do no have Article III standing, as the order merely sets a date for rulemaking, and there is no showing that notice and comment would be insufficient.  No statutory standing, as there's no impairment of interests.

Putative intervenors' arguments construed as amici, rejected.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1F012EA1238D7A3C85257F490054E52E/$file/14-1149-1596081.pdf

Order here:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/735DB53755E54B5085257F490054E579/$file/14-1149-1596091.pdf

Second Circuit: Friends of Animals v. Clay et al.

Administrative, environment

Statute's requirement of a specific permit for the taking of a member of a protected species is satisfied by specificity in the situation, not necessarily specificity in the species.

Employees of a multijurisdictional authority would be protected by the justification of necessity when taking animals outside the statute in order to prevent death or serious bodily harm.

Facepalm pun at peroration.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8ff2d324-fcfa-460d-953a-74b3a3021a4f/2/doc/14-4071_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8ff2d324-fcfa-460d-953a-74b3a3021a4f/2/hilite/

Eighth Circuit: National Parks Conservation v. EPA

Administrative, environment

Circuit has statutory jurisdiction over challenge to local component of national plan.

Offsets plan upheld as not arbitrary and capricious.

Rational basis for agency modification of statutory goals.

Concur in J: No circuit jurisdiction over national plan.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/122910P.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Larry Askins v. Ohio Department of Agriculture

Administrative/environment

There is no right of action under the CWA for private citizens to challenge administrative noncompliance of state regulators.

While the CWA does require that authority be withdrawn from a noncompliant regulator after a hearing, as there is no explicit requirement for a hearing, there is no right of action premised on the delay in holding a hearing.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0005p-06.pdf

Third Circuit: Group Against Smog and Pollution v. Shenango Inc

Administrative law - citizen suit/environment

Statute's requirement that there not be a pre-existing diligent prosecution of rights under the statute in order to permit a citizen suit is a substantive requirement, not a jurisdictional bar to suit.

A final judgment resulting from a diligent prosecution does not, in itself, remove the bar to citizen suit.

Diligent enforcement of outcome acts as a per se bar to citizen suit.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/152041p.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Alaska Wilderness League v. Sally Jewell

Environment - Denial of En Banc

Dissent from denial:

There is no Chevron ambiguity in a statute where a fixed number of criteria are established for compliance, and findings of compliance are later accorded discretion.

ESA/CWA.

Court impermissibly allows agency to define its own scope of discretion when it allows it to define a finding of compliance as mandatory when the text does not explicitly so state.

https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/29/13-35866.pdf

DC Circuit: Friends of Animals v. Dan Ashe

Endangered Species - Administrative Law

Not only was suit requiring final action on a species untimely because it was filed more than 60 days after the notice of claim, but there was no basis for a final determination suit, as only an initial determination can trigger the need for a final determination, and that's another lawsuit entirely.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/18ECBD126C42112385257F230057312D/$file/14-5172-1589984.pdf