In Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company, LLC v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 22-9530 (10th Cir. July 5, 2023),  the Honorable Scott M. Matheson, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed a petition for review filed by Sinclair Wyoming Refining Company, LLC (“Sinclair”) of an email from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) for lack of jurisdiction because it was not a final agency action.  Sinclair applied for a hardship exemption from EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standards for compliance year 2018 and, when EPA did not immediately respond, submitted Renewable Identification Numbers (“RINs”) in compliance with the regulations.  Sinclair’s application was initially denied by EPA and later reconsidered and approved.  Sinclair asked EPA in two separate emails to return the RINs that it had submitted for calendar year 2018.  In April 2022, the Director of EPA’s Fuel Compliance Center responded to Sinclair’s email, stating, in relevant part, that “the 2018 RINs [would] not be returned… .”  Sinclair filed the petition for review of EPA’s April 2022 email. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Air, Clean Air Act, Federal Jurisdiction, Procedure, Tenth Circuit

Over the last week, pre-enforcement challenges to two separate federal government actions have been dismissed for lack of standing.  In Commonwealth of Kentucky et al. v. EPA, et al., No 3:23-cv-00007-GFVT, 2023 WL 2733383 (E.D. Ky. March 31, 2023), the Honorable Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed without prejudice claims brought by the Commonwealth of Kentucky (the “Commonwealth”) and private-sector plaintiffs challenging the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) and Army Corps of Engineers’ rule redefining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.  Five days later, in The State of Louisiana, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., No. 22-30087, 2023 WL 2780821 (5th Cir. April 5, 2023), the Honorable Jacques L. Wiener, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed states’ challenges to President Biden’s social cost of greenhouse gases established pursuant to Executive Order No. 13990 (the “Executive Order”).  Both cases demonstrate the importance of alleging sufficient harm to confer federal court jurisdiction. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Due Process, Federal Jurisdiction, Federal Procedure, Greenhouse Gas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Procedure, Rapanos, Standing, Water

Last month we reported on Curtis v. 7-Eleven, in which the Northern District of Illinois held that marking products as “recyclable” when they may not, as a practical matter, be recycled did not constitute consumer fraud because the fact that the material is capable of being recycled is not false or misleading.  This month, the Northern District of California came to the same conclusion.  In David Swartz, et al., v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., No. 21-cv-04643 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022), the Honorable James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss claims brought against defendants Coca-Cola, Blue Triton Brands, and Niagara Bottling (collectively the “Defendants”) by plaintiff individuals and Sierra Club (“Plaintiffs”).  Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, and that such violations constitute fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.  Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the “100% recyclable” labels on single-use plastic bottles supplied by the Defendants were false and misleading because most plastic bottles are not recycled and instead end up in landfills or incinerators due to a lack of recycling capacity and a lack of demand for recycled plastics.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: California, Greenwashing, Procedure, Waste

When a public interest environmental rights group or other party appeals a decision by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection affecting a planned project, it should name the permittee as a party on the Notice of Appeal and serve them accordingly. On April 11, 2022, the Supreme Court of New Jersey remanded a case back to the Appellate Division and held that an appellant natural gas company should have been named as a party in the Notice of Appeal and served. See In re Proposed Constr. of Compressor Station (CS327), No. 086428 (Apr. 11, 2022). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Appeals, Intervention, Natural Gas, New Jersey, Oil and Gas, Permits, Pipelines, Procedure, Standing

Rejecting federal officer removal and federal question removal theories, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District of West Virginia’s remand of a state tort suit against the remediators of an EPA-permitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) site.  W.V. St. Univ. Bd. of Govs. v. Dow Chem. Co. et al., No. 20-1712, __ F.4^th __, 2022 WL 90242 (Jan. 10, 2022). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, Federal Jurisdiction, Federal Procedure, Fourth Circuit, Groundwater, Negligence, Nuisance, Procedure, RCRA, Removal, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Superfund, Trespass, West Virginia

This Blog Post was authored by Omar Khodor, a summer associate.

On June 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit, in directing the lower court to dismiss a citizen’s suit claim under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), held that the CWA did not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity. Deschutes River All. v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., No. 18-35867, 2021 WL 2559477 (9th Cir. June 23, 2021). To abrogate a Tribe’s sovereign immunity, the Ninth Circuit explained that a statute must convey “perfect confidence” that Congress intended to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity. Id. at 14. It further found that the CWA does not unequivocally do so because Section 1365 – a section explicitly dealing with United States and governmental sovereign immunity – does not mention tribal sovereign immunity. Id. at 15-16. Rather, Section 1365 states that “any citizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf . . . against any person (including (i) the United States, and (ii) any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution).” 33 U.S.C. § 1365. Although Section 1362(5) of the CWA goes on to define “any person” as a municipality (among other things), and Section 1362(4) further defines a “municipality” as including an “Indian Tribe or an authorized Indian Tribal organization,” the court determined that Congress had not clearly intended to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity because Tribes are not included in Section 1365. Deschutes River All., 2021 WL 2559477 at *15-16. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Clean Water Act, Energy, Federal Procedure, Ninth Circuit, Procedure, Sovereign Immunity, Tribal Lands

On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court vacated an appellate court decision which had remanded to state court an action seeking to hold petroleum companies liable for the effects of climate change, finding that the appellate court impermissibly restricted the scope of its review of a district court’s order. Although, as noted by the Supreme Court, “[t]he only question before us is one of civil procedure,” the case of BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Docket No. 19-1189 (May 17, 2021) may have a profound practical impact on ongoing environmental litigation. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Citizen Suit, Climate Change, Decisions of Note, Energy, Fourth Circuit, Greenhouse Gas, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Refinery, Removal, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court

In State of Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., L.L.C. et al., No. 19-1818 (1st Cir. 2020), decided on October 29th, 2020, the First Circuit joined seven sister circuits in holding that the scope of appellate review of remand orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) is limited to the questions of federal-officer jurisdiction and civil rights jurisdiction. And while the holding does not break new ground in light of its consistency, it informs members of industry of the venue in which they will litigate climate change claims based in tort and state law providing environmental rights. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Climate Change, Federal Procedure, First Circuit, Nuisance, Procedure, Removal, Trespass

This Post was authored by Andrew LeDonne, a MGKF summer associate. 

On July 2, 2018, the State of Rhode Island (“RI”) filed suit against twenty-one oil and gas companies in an attempt to hold these organizations liable for climate change impacts RI has and will experience. The defendants (Chevron Corp., et al.) removed the case to federal court. On August 17, 2018, RI filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. On Monday, July 22, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted RI’s motion to remand. The remand order was stayed for sixty days for the court to consider whether a further stay pending appeal is warranted. Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., 2019 WL 3282007 (D.R.I. July 22, 2019). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Climate Change, Emissions, Federal Procedure, First Circuit, Nuisance, Oil and Gas, Preemption, Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction

On June 21, 2019, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, shaking up Fifth Amendment takings claim jurisprudence. Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019). In Knick, the Court held that a property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim at the moment a state or local government takes her property without paying just compensation, and that violation of the Fifth Amendment can be remedied in federal court via a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The ruling overturned years of precedent that held that a plaintiff could not bring a takings claim in federal court against a state or local government until she had first exhausted her state court remedies. Knick specifically overruled Williamson County, the 1985 case which established the state-litigation requirement. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Deeds, Due Process, Fair Market Value, Pennsylvania, Procedure, Property Value, Real Estate, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supreme Court, Takings, Takings Clause, United States Supreme Court, Zoning