当前位置：首页 > 产品中心
national mining association v army rps of engineers brief
national mining association v army rps of engineers brief
2023-07-29T10:07:53+00:00
National Mining Association v US Army Corps of
Get National Mining Association v US Army Corps of Engineers, 145 F3d 1399 (1998), United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today Written and curated by real attorneys at QuimbeeNational Mining Association v Army Corps of Engineers Douglas E Morrison* The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia limited the ability of the USEPA and Army Corps of Engineers to regulate excavation of wetlands with the 1998 holding of National Mining Association v US Army Corps of EngineersNational Mining Association v Army Corps of Engineers United States Army Corps of Engineers, 951 FSupp 267 (DDC1997) The district court also entered an injunction prohibiting the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency, who jointly administer § 404, from enforcing the regulation anywhere in the United StatesNATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION v ARMY CORPS Opinion for National Mining Association v US Army Corps of Engineers, 145 F3d 1399 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a nonprofit dedicated to creating high quality open legal informationNational Mining Association v US Army Corps of National Mining Association, et al, Appellees, v US Army Corps of Engineers, et al, Appellants, 145 F3d 1399 (DC Cir 1998) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitNational Mining Association, et al, Appellees, v US
Memorandum on Issuance of Final Rule Responding
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 951 FSupp 267 (DDC 1997), aff'd sub nom, National Mining Association v United States Army Corps of Engineers, 145 F 3d 1399 (DC Cir, 1998)) In response, EPA and the Corps have recently prepared and published a final rule in order to conform the regulations to the decision and injunction 2 Amaditz, Attorneys, and Ann D Navaro, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel United States Army Corps of Engineers Emma C Cheuse argued the cause for appellants Sierra Club, et al With her on the briefs were Jennifer C Chavez and Derek O Teaney Kirsten L Nathanson argued the cause for appellees National Mining Association and Kentucky Coal AssociationUnited States Court of Appeals Earthjustice brief of amici curiae national association of home builders, american farm bureau federation, national association of manufacturers, national cattlemen’s beef association, national mining association, national federation of independent business, and american fuel petrochemical us army corps of engineers, kohley farm jurisdictional IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OHIO VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION; COAL RIVER MOUNTAIN WATCH; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, PlaintiffsAppellees, v WEST VIRGINIA COAL ASSOCIATION; KENTUCKY COAL ASSOCIATION; OHIO COAL ASSOCIATION; COAL OPERATIONS AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION, IntervenorsDefendantsAppellants, No 042137 and WILLIAM BULEN, District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers,PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS v US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DefendantCross Defendant, Claimant Case No 205197 AMICI BRIEF OF NORTH DAKOTA FARM BUREAU, NORTH DAKOTA National Parks Conservation Association vUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
United States Court of Appeals
2 No 045223 045224 NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE FEDERATION; SIERRA CLUB, APPELLANTS v US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ET AL, APPELLEES Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No 01cv00274) (No 01cv00320) Rafe Petersen argued the cause for the joint appellants, National Association of Home Builders and National Mining Association v US Army Corps of Engineers30 That case involved a challenge to regulations promulgated jointly by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in response to an earlier lawsuit filed by the National Wildlife Federation, which charged the Corps with failing to regulate theThe Judicial Assault on the Clean Water Act United States Army Corps of Engineers OPENING BRIEF FOR THE BUSINESS AND MUNICIPAL PETITIONERS BROOKS M SMITH DOUGLAS A HENDERSON JUSTIN T WONG Troutman Sanders LLP 1001 Haxall Point Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 6971200 Counsel for Petitioner in No 153751 TIMOTHY S BISHOP MICHAEL B KIMBERLY Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street NWIn the United States Court of Appeals predecessor to the 2001 Rule, National Mining Assn v US Army Corps of Engineers, 145 F3d 1399 (DC Cir 1998), as well as with two decades of jurisprudence from various circuits around the country By broadly questioning regulation of redeposits, plaintiffs ignore Congress' expressCROSSMOTION OF INTERVENORDEFENDANTS Several years later, in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v US Army Corps of Engineers, 531 US 159 (2001), the Court rejected the Corps’ assertion of regulatory jurisdiction over an abandoned sand and gravel pit that “seasonally ponded” but was not adjacent to FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth
Bragg v West Virginia Mining Association Public
Public Justice also won a settlement against the US Army Corps of Engineers requiring preparation of a programmatic environmental impact statement on mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia and a consent decree against the State of West Virginia that required it to reform and improve its mine permitting procedures No 16299 In the Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, Petitioner, v US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL, Respondents On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of AppealsNo 16299 In the Supreme Court of the United StatesA divided Supreme Court ruled today that the Army Corps of Engineers, not US EPA, has permitting authority over miningwaste discharges under the Clean Water Act "We conclude that the Corps was WATER POLLUTION: Supreme Court backs Army 176 176 SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK CTY v ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS STEVENS, J, dissenting parcel of lowlying marshy land that was not itself navigable, directly adjacent to navigable water, or even hydrologically connected to navigable water, but which was part of a larger area, characterized by poor drainage, that ultimately abutted a navigable creekSolid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty v Army in the united states district court for the district of north dakota state of north dakota, et al, plaintiffs, v united states environmental protection agency, et al, defendantsIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
The Judicial Assault on the Clean Water Act
Mining Association v US Army Corps of Engineers30 That case involved a challenge to regulations promulgated jointly by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in response to an earlier lawsuit filed by the National Wildlife Federation, which charged the Corps with failing to regulate the 2 No 045223 045224 NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE FEDERATION; SIERRA CLUB, APPELLANTS v US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ET AL, APPELLEES Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No 01cv00274) (No 01cv00320) Rafe Petersen argued the cause for the joint appellants, National Association of Home Builders and National United States Court of Appeals The National Mining Association is a national trade association whose members produce most of America’s coal, metals, and industrial and agricultural minerals Its membership also includes manufacturers of mining and mineral processing machinery and supplies, transporters, financial and engineering firms, and other businesses involved in theNo 15290 In the Supreme Court of the United StatesPublic Justice also won a settlement against the US Army Corps of Engineers requiring preparation of a programmatic environmental impact statement on mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia and a consent decree against the State of West Virginia that required it to reform and improve its mine permitting proceduresBragg v West Virginia Mining Association Public v US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DefendantCross Defendant, and DAKOTA ACCESS, LLC, DefendantIntervenorCross Claimant Case No 1:16cv1534JEB (and Consolidated Case Nos 16cv1796 and 17cv267) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE ARMY CORPSIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WATER POLLUTION: Supreme Court backs Army
A divided Supreme Court ruled today that the Army Corps of Engineers, not US EPA, has permitting authority over miningwaste discharges under the Clean Water Act "We conclude that the Corps was A divided Supreme Court ruled today that the Army Corps of Engineers, not US EPA, has permitting authority over miningwaste discharges under the Clean Water Act "We conclude that the Corps was the appropriate agency to issue the permit and that the permit is lawful," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the 63 majoritySupreme Court Backs Army Corps, Mining Company in the united states district court for the district of north dakota state of north dakota, et al, plaintiffs, v united states environmental protection agency, et al, defendantsIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EPA's outsized view of its authority took another hit July 31 from Judge Reggie Walton in National Mining Association vJacksonThere, NMA and Judges Rule That EPA Can't Conjure Up New Permit brief of national conference of state legislatures, council of state governments, national association of counties, national league of cities, us conference of mayors, international city/county management association, and international municipal lawyers association as amici curiae in support of petitioner weyerhaeuser company I Supreme Court of the United States