Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Dec 3, 2012
|Mar 20, 2013||7-1||Kennedy||OT 2012|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondent in this case.
Holding: A provision of the Clean Water Act governing challenges to Environmental Protection Agency actions, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b), is not a jurisdictional bar to this suit, which alleges that the defendants had not obtained National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits before discharging stormwater runoff into two Oregon rivers. That provision is the exclusive vehicle for suits seeking to invalidate certain agency decisions, such as the establishment of effluent standards and the issuance of permits. It does not bar a district court from entertaining a citizen suit, like this one, under Section 1365 when the suit is against an alleged violator and seeks to enforce an obligation imposed by the Act or its regulations. Moreover, the EPA’s recent amendment to the Industrial Stormwater Rule does not make the cases moot.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Reversed on March 20, 2013. The Chief Justice filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Alito. Justice Scalia filed an opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part.
- Opinion analysis: Too soon to say “au revoir” to Auer? (John Elwood)
- Much advice, little agreement, on EPA case (Lyle Denniston)
- Stormwater case about to end? (Lyle Denniston)
- Argument recap: With amici like these . . . (John Elwood)
- Argument preview: Does channeling rainwater through a ditch require a Clean Water Act permit? (John Elwood)
Invited: December 12, 2011
Filed: May 24, 2012 (Deny)