Cases

586 F.2d 847 State of Arizonav.Environmental Protection Agency No. 73-3577 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 8/31/78 1 E.P.A. DISMISSED

OPINION BYBEE, Circuit Judge: In the late 1970s, Congress declared it a “national goal” to improve air visibility in federal parks and forests. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1); see also 40 C.F.R. § 81.400 et seq. (listing all national parks, national monuments, and wilderness areas Congress sought to protect). To achieve

OPINION OWENS, Circuit Judge: Petitioners Vincent Yazzie, several tribal conservation organizations, and certain *965 non-profit environmental organizations (collectively “petitioners”) 1 seek final review of the Un

FLOYD, Circuit Judge: In this case, we consider the bounds of a federal court’s authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to correct an alleged failure by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform a non-discretionary, CAA-based act or duty. See 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). The precise issue before us is whether this authority extends to review of the E

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge CLIFTON *1222OPINION IKUTA, Circuit Judge: Sandra Bahr and David Matusow petition for review of a final rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approving Arizona’s Five Percent Plan for airborne particulate matter around Mari-copa County. They argue that the EPA

OPINION SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge: The Hopi Tribe petitions for review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) federal implementation plan *959 (“FIP”) under the Clean Air Act (“CAA’O for the Navajo Generating Station (“Station”) in Arizona. The station is operated b

562 F.3d 1116 (2009) ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. Sierra Club, Din้ Care, Din้ for the C-Aquifer, and San Juan Citizens Alliance, Intervenors. Sierra Club, Din้ Care, Din้ for the C-Aquifer, and San Juan Citizens Alliance, Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. Arizona Public Service Company, Intevenor.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RALPH R. ERICKSON, Chief Judge. I. Summary of Decision Original jurisdiction is vested in this court and not the court of appeals because the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States,” jointly promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, h

OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge: Congress initially enacted the Clean Air Act (“the Act” or “CAA”) in 1963 to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1). Later, in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-95, § 128, 91 Stat. 685, 742 (current version at 42 U.S.C.

HARTZ, Circuit Judge. On August 24, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to reduce regional haze by regulating emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) at the five units of the Four Corners Power Plant (the Plant) on the Navajo Reservation in northwestern New Mexico.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Per Curiam Plaintiffs filed these actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma to challenge a regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency defining the term “waters of the United States” for purposes of the Clean Water Act. The district court dismissed both cases, concluding

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: Suppose you were the EPA Administrator. You have to decide whether to go forward with a proposed air quality regulation. Your only statutory direction is to decide whether it is “appropriate” to go forward with the regulation. Before making that decision, what information would you want to know? You would cer

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was presented to the Court and briefed and argued by counsel. The Court has accorded the issues full consideration and has determined they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C.Cir. R. 36(d). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the Distric

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge EDWARDS. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting from Part II.A. filed by Circuit Judge GINSBURG. HARRY T. EDWARDS, Chief Judge: In 1990, Congress passed a compendium of amendments to the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “the Act”). This case concerns those amendments that specifically address the power of Native American nations (or “tribes”) to

CHIN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The Clean Water Act (the “Act”) prohibits the “discharge of any pollutant by any person” from “any point source” to “navigable waters” of the United States, without a permit. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(12)(A). The question presented is whether a transfer of water containing pollutants from one body of water to another—say, in upstate New

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur generally with the panel’s decision. I write separately, however, because the EPA did not err in concluding that the four disputed parcels were reservation lands. In addition, the EPA properly promulgated the Tribe’s redesignation as part of a Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”). To hold otherwise due to ad

559 F.3d 512 (2009) AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION and National Pork Producers Council, Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent American Chemistry Council, et al., Intervenors. Nos. 06-1410, 06-1411, 06-1415, 06-1416, 06-1417. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued September 15, 2008. Decided February 24, 20

THOMPSON, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting: Because I disagree with the conclusion in Part III of the majority opinion that the EPA had the authority to consider the impact on endangered and threatened species in making its decision to transfer administration of the pollution permitting system to the State of Arizona, I respectfully dissent. As the majority observes, the requirements of sec

LUCERO, Circuit Judge. This case involves petitions for review of actions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f to 300j-26. Petitioners Hydro Resources, Inc. (“HRI”) and New Mexico Environment Department (“NMED”) challenge EPA’s decision to implement the direct federal underground injection cont

510 U.S. 828 Central Arizona Water Conservation District et al.v.Environmental Protection Agency et al. No. 92-2052. Supreme Court of United States. October 4, 1993. 1 Appeal from the C. A. 9th Cir. 2