National Mining
Association v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers case brief
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
145 F.3d
1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers challenged the decision of the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, which granted
summary judgment for plaintiff mining associations. The mining
associations challenged 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(d)(1), a regulation
covering dredged materials.
FACTS: The mining associations challenged a 1993 regulation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that removed a de minimis exception to § 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 1344, and expanded the definition of dredged discharge to include redeposit of dredged materials, including fallback, under the statute. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the mining associations and enjoined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from enforcing the regulation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers appealed. The court affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that by asserting jurisdiction over "any redeposit," including incidental fallback, the 1993 regulation was beyond the statutory authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The court also affirmed the district court's nationwide enjoinment of the enforcement of the regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the summary judgment and enjoined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA from enforcement of the 1993 regulation that concerned dredged materials.
---
FACTS: The mining associations challenged a 1993 regulation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that removed a de minimis exception to § 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 1344, and expanded the definition of dredged discharge to include redeposit of dredged materials, including fallback, under the statute. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the mining associations and enjoined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from enforcing the regulation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers appealed. The court affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that by asserting jurisdiction over "any redeposit," including incidental fallback, the 1993 regulation was beyond the statutory authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The court also affirmed the district court's nationwide enjoinment of the enforcement of the regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the summary judgment and enjoined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA from enforcement of the 1993 regulation that concerned dredged materials.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment