Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Iron Bar Holdings, LLC, a private landowner in Wyoming, owns a checkerboarded ranch interspersed with federal and state public lands. The only way to access these public lands, other than by aircraft, is by corner-crossing, which involves stepping from one public parcel to another at their adjoining corners without touching the private land in between. In 2020 and 2021, a group of hunters from Missouri corner-crossed to hunt elk on the public lands within Iron Bar's ranch. Iron Bar's property manager confronted the hunters, and law enforcement was contacted, but no citations were issued. In 2021, the hunters were prosecuted for criminal trespass but were acquitted. Iron Bar then filed a civil lawsuit for trespassing, seeking $9 million in damages.The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming granted summary judgment in favor of the hunters, holding that corner-crossing without physically contacting private land and without causing damage does not constitute unlawful trespass. Iron Bar Holdings appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that while Wyoming law recognizes a property owner's right to exclude others from their airspace, federal law, specifically the Unlawful Inclosures Act (UIA) of 1885, overrides state law in this context. The UIA prohibits any inclosure of public lands that obstructs free passage or transit over them. The court found that Iron Bar's actions effectively enclosed public lands and prevented lawful access, which is prohibited by the UIA. The court affirmed the district court's decision, allowing the hunters to corner-cross as long as they did not physically touch Iron Bar's land. View "Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape" on Justia Law

The case involves a project to build a four-story hotel and extend a road in the City of Clearlake. The City approved the project after adopting a mitigated negative declaration (MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Koi Nation of Northern California, a Native American tribe, challenged the approval, alleging the City failed to comply with CEQA, particularly the provisions added by Assembly Bill No. 52, which requires consideration of tribal cultural resources and meaningful consultation with tribes.The trial court denied Koi Nation's petition for writ of mandate, concluding that the City had not violated CEQA’s consultation requirements because there was no written request from Koi Nation to invoke the right to consultation. The court also rejected Koi Nation’s claims regarding the City’s failure to investigate and mitigate the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that Koi Nation had indeed requested consultation in writing, as required by CEQA. The court determined that the City failed to conduct meaningful consultation, as it did not engage in a process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of Koi Nation, nor did it seek agreement on mitigation measures. The court concluded that the City’s failure to comply with CEQA’s consultation requirements constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion, as it omitted material necessary for informed decision-making and public participation.The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and judgment, instructing the superior court to issue a writ of mandate setting aside the City’s MND and related project approvals. The court did not address Koi Nation’s other arguments, including the need for an environmental impact report (EIR). View "Koi Nation of Northern California v. City of Clearlake" on Justia Law

The case involves the Organization of Professional Aviculturists, Inc. and the Lineolated Parakeet Society, who sought to import two captive-bred parrot species, the Cactus conure and the green form of the Lineolated parakeet, from certain European countries. The Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act of 1992 prohibits the importation of these species unless they are added to a list of approved species. The plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to add these species to the list but only those bred in specific European countries. The Service denied the petitions, stating that the Act and its regulations do not allow for species to be approved on a country-by-country basis.The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit, arguing that the Service's denial violated the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the claims with prejudice, reasoning that the Act requires the Service to consider species as a whole, not on a country-by-country basis. The court found that this interpretation aligned with the agency's long-standing interpretation and the statute's structure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the text, structure, and purpose of the Act require the Service to determine whether to exempt a species as a whole from the importation moratorium, not on a country-by-country basis. The court found that the Act's language and structure, including the requirement to consider regulatory and enforcement mechanisms in all countries of origin, support this interpretation. The court also noted that the Service's consistent interpretation since 1994 further supports this conclusion. Therefore, the Service's denial of the petitions did not violate the APA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Organization of Professional Aviculturists, Inc. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" on Justia Law

The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Sault Tribe) objected to the district court’s entry of the 2023 Great Lakes Fishing Decree, which resulted from a three-year negotiation among seven sovereigns, including the United States, the State of Michigan, and several Indian tribes. The 2023 Decree aimed to balance the Tribes’ treaty-reserved fishing rights with the preservation of the fishery waters. The Sault Tribe argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the decree without its consent and failed to evaluate the decree’s tribal fishing regulations based on the standard set out in People v. LeBlanc.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan overruled the Sault Tribe’s objections and entered the 2023 Decree, binding the Sault Tribe to its terms. The court concluded that it had the authority to approve the decree based on its continuing jurisdiction and equitable powers, and that the LeBlanc standard did not apply because the decree was a product of negotiation, not unilateral state regulation. The court also found that the Sault Tribe’s specific objections did not show that the decree was unreasonable or inconsistent with the treaty or the law of the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s entry of the 2023 Decree. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its continuing jurisdiction and inherent equitable power to enter the decree over the Sault Tribe’s objections. The court found that the district court had followed the appropriate legal standards and provided the Sault Tribe with due process by allowing it to file objections, present evidence, and argue its objections in an oral hearing. The appellate court also dismissed as moot the Sault Tribe’s appeal of the district court’s order extending the 2000 Decree, as the 2000 Decree was no longer in effect. View "United States v. Michigan" on Justia Law

Maryland and South Carolina filed lawsuits in state courts against 3M Company and other chemical manufacturers, alleging contamination of their waterways with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The states filed separate complaints for PFAS contamination from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) and non-AFFF products, explicitly disclaiming any connection between the two in their non-AFFF complaints.In the District of Maryland, 3M removed Maryland's non-AFFF complaint to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, arguing that PFAS from its Military AFFF production was indistinguishably commingled with PFAS from its non-AFFF products. The district court remanded the case, giving dispositive effect to Maryland's disclaimer and concluding that 3M's federal work was not implicated. Similarly, in the District of South Carolina, 3M removed South Carolina's non-AFFF complaint, but the district court also remanded, crediting the state's disclaimer and finding no connection to 3M's federal work.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that the states' disclaimers were not dispositive in determining the connection between 3M's federal work and the charged conduct. The court concluded that 3M plausibly alleged that PFAS contamination from its Military AFFF production was related to the states' claims, satisfying the nexus requirement for federal officer removal. The court vacated the district courts' decisions and remanded for further consideration of whether 3M met the other elements for federal officer removal, including acting under a federal officer and having a colorable federal defense. View "State of Maryland v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

David L. Murphy Properties, LLC and John Schaffer own property adjacent to Painted Rocks Cliff, LLC on Flathead Lake. Painted Rocks constructed a dock after obtaining a permit from Lake County. Murphy Properties claimed the dock violated the Lakeshore Protection Act, interfered with their prescriptive easement, and constituted a nuisance.The Twentieth Judicial District Court dismissed Murphy Properties' Lakeshore Protection Act claim against Lake County and granted summary judgment in favor of Painted Rocks on all claims. The court found that the dock did not interfere with navigation or lawful recreation under the Act, as Murphy Properties could still access the cove with smaller watercraft. The court also ruled that Murphy Properties could not establish a prescriptive easement because their use of the cove was not exclusive, given the public's right to use the waters. Additionally, the court dismissed the nuisance claim, as it was contingent on the alleged violation of the Lakeshore Protection Act.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court's rulings. The court held that the Lakeshore Protection Act does not mandate denial of a permit if a project impacts navigation or recreation, but rather favors issuance if it does not. The court agreed that Murphy Properties' use of the cove was not exclusive and thus could not support a prescriptive easement. The court also upheld the dismissal of the nuisance claim, as it was based on the failed Lakeshore Protection Act claim. The judgment in favor of Lake County and Painted Rocks was affirmed. View "David L. Murphy Properties, LLC v. Painted Rocks Cliff, LLC" on Justia Law

Michael and Elizabeth Dailey filed an appeal with the Environmental Court of the First Circuit in July 2022, challenging a 2022 decision by the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR). The decision involved a seawall allegedly constructed within the conservation district. The BLNR raised jurisdictional issues, citing Act 48 of 2016, which mandates that such appeals be filed directly with the Supreme Court of Hawaii. The Daileys argued that their case involved shoreline setback issues under HRS Chapter 205A, which would allow the environmental court to have jurisdiction.The environmental court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating it did not have the authority to transfer the case to the Supreme Court. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed this decision, agreeing that the appeal arose under HRS Chapter 183C and not HRS Chapter 205A Part III, and thus should have been filed directly with the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Hawaii reviewed the case and determined that the Daileys' appeal did not involve the HRS Chapter 205A shoreline setback exception. Therefore, the Supreme Court had exclusive appellate jurisdiction. The court also held that the environmental court had the inherent and statutory power to transfer the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered the environmental court to transfer the appeal nunc pro tunc to the date it was originally filed, allowing the appeal to proceed in the Supreme Court under the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure. View "Dailey v. Department of Land and Natural Resources" on Justia Law

The City and County of San Francisco operates two combined wastewater treatment facilities that process both wastewater and stormwater. During heavy precipitation, these facilities may discharge untreated water into the Pacific Ocean or San Francisco Bay. In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a renewal permit for San Francisco's Oceanside facility, adding two "end-result" requirements. These requirements prohibited discharges that contribute to violations of water quality standards and discharges that create pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined by California law. San Francisco challenged these provisions, arguing they exceeded the EPA's statutory authority.The California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the EPA approved the final Oceanside NPDES permit. San Francisco appealed to the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board, which rejected the challenge. The City then petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit, which denied the petition. The Ninth Circuit held that the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the EPA to impose any limitations necessary to ensure water quality standards are met in receiving waters.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the CWA does not authorize the EPA to include "end-result" provisions in NPDES permits. The Court reasoned that determining the specific steps a permittee must take to meet water quality standards is the EPA's responsibility, and Congress has provided the necessary tools for the EPA to make such determinations. The Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's decision, emphasizing that the EPA must set specific rules for permittees to follow rather than imposing broad end-result requirements. View "City and County of San Francisco v. EPA" on Justia Law

The Center for Biological Diversity and 350 Colorado challenged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that partially approved Colorado’s plan to reduce ozone pollution. The Clean Air Act required Colorado to lower ozone levels by July 2021, but the state failed to meet this deadline. Petitioners argued that the EPA’s approval of Colorado’s plan violated the Clean Air Act in three ways: by approving the plan after the deadline, by including state-only emissions reductions, and by violating the anti-backsliding provision.The EPA approved Colorado’s reasonable-further-progress demonstration and motor-vehicle-emissions budget, determining that the state showed emissions reductions of at least three percent per year from 2018 to 2020. The EPA also found that the SIP’s projected emissions reductions were based on creditable, federally enforceable measures and complied with the anti-backsliding mandate. Petitioners argued that the EPA’s approval was unlawful because the state failed to attain the required ozone levels by the deadline and included non-federally enforceable control measures in its calculations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the EPA did not act unlawfully in approving Colorado’s reasonable-further-progress demonstration after the state missed its attainment deadline. The court found that reasonable-further-progress demonstrations are distinct from attainment demonstrations and that the EPA’s approval was based on compliance with reasonable-further-progress requirements. The court also held that the EPA’s approval of Colorado’s motor-vehicle-emissions budget was lawful, as it was consistent with reasonable-further-progress requirements. Additionally, the court found that the EPA’s approval did not violate the anti-backsliding provision, as the SIP revisions would not increase emissions and would not hinder attainment.The court denied the petition for review, upholding the EPA’s approval of Colorado’s plan. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

A labor union, representing hotel and restaurant employees, challenged the environmental assessments (FEAs) for two condominium hotel projects developed by PACREP LLC and PACREP 2 LLC in Waikiki, Honolulu. The union argued that the FEAs were insufficient under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act (HEPA) because they failed to discuss the potential use of condo-hotel units as permanent residences and improperly segmented the environmental review process for the two projects.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit ruled in favor of PACREP, granting summary judgment on the grounds that the FEAs were sufficient and the cases were moot because the projects were completed. The court also denied the union's motions for summary judgment, which argued that the environmental review was improperly segmented and that the FEAs were insufficient.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii reviewed the case and held that the union's claims were not moot because effective relief in the form of proper environmental review could still be granted. The court also determined that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applied. The court found that the environmental review for the two projects was improperly segmented under the double independent utility test, as the development of the second project (2139) was a necessary precedent for the first project (2121).The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of PACREP and the City and denying the union's motions for summary judgment. The case was remanded to the circuit court to determine whether the FEAs for the two projects were sufficient in addressing the environmental effects as one combined project and, if not, whether a new environmental assessment or environmental impact statement was required. View "Unite Here! Local 5 v. Pacrep LLC" on Justia Law