Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves over 1,420 Peruvian citizens alleging environmental harm due to exposure to toxic substances from the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex (LOMC) in Peru. The plaintiffs claim that Doe Run Resources Corporation and related entities, which purchased LOMC in 1997, failed to reduce lead emissions, resulting in unsafe lead levels and subsequent health issues. The plaintiffs argue that Doe Run's decision-making in the United States led to their injuries.Initially, the plaintiffs filed common law tort lawsuits in Missouri state court, which were removed to federal court and consolidated. The district court dismissed several claims and defendants but allowed the substantive negligence-based claims to proceed under Missouri law. Doe Run filed motions to dismiss based on international comity and to apply Peruvian law, both of which were denied by the district court. The court also denied summary judgment on the safe harbor defense and certified its choice-of-law and comity rulings for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decisions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying dismissal under the doctrine of international comity, as the harm occurred in Peru but the alleged conduct occurred in Missouri. The court also found that the Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) between the United States and Peru did not require dismissal, as the plaintiffs' claims were not explicitly addressed by the TPA. Additionally, the court determined that traditional comity factors did not necessitate dismissal, as neither the State Department nor the government of Peru had asserted their positions, and there was no adequate alternative forum in Peru. Lastly, the court concluded that extraterritoriality principles did not warrant abstention, as the plaintiffs' claims were based on conduct within the United States.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Reid v. Doe Run Resources Corp." on Justia Law

The case involves the Michigan Farm Bureau and other agricultural entities challenging new conditions imposed by the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) in a 2020 general permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The new conditions included stricter limits on phosphorus application, setback requirements, and a presumptive ban on waste application during certain months. The plaintiffs argued that these conditions exceeded EGLE’s statutory authority, were contrary to state and federal law, lacked factual justification, were arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional, and invalid due to procedural failures under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (APA).Initially, the plaintiffs sought a contested-case hearing to challenge the permit but then filed for declaratory judgment in the Court of Claims. EGLE moved for summary disposition, arguing that the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies. The Court of Claims agreed, dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision but held that the plaintiffs could seek a declaratory judgment under MCL 24.264, provided they first requested a declaratory ruling from EGLE, which they had not done.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the 2020 general permit and its discretionary conditions were not "rules" under the APA because EGLE lacked the statutory authority to issue rules related to NPDES permits for CAFOs. Consequently, the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under MCL 24.264. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals but vacated its holding that the discretionary conditions were rules. The Court emphasized that EGLE must genuinely evaluate the necessity of discretionary conditions in individual cases and that these conditions do not have the force and effect of law. View "Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept. Of Environment Great Lakes And Energy" on Justia Law

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a certificate to Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) to construct and operate a pipeline through several states, including New Jersey. The New Jersey Conservation Foundation and other petitioners argued that FERC overlooked significant environmental consequences and failed to consider evidence of a lack of market need for the pipeline. They also contended that FERC ignored New Jersey state laws mandating reductions in natural gas consumption.The lower court, FERC, approved the pipeline project, finding that the public benefits outweighed the adverse impacts. FERC based its decision on precedent agreements with local gas distribution companies (LDCs) and concluded that the project satisfied the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Petitioners requested a rehearing, arguing that FERC's decision was arbitrary and capricious. FERC denied the rehearing request, maintaining its position on market need and environmental impact assessments.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that FERC acted arbitrarily by not adequately explaining its decision regarding the significance of greenhouse gas emissions and failing to discuss possible mitigation measures. The court also held that FERC did not properly consider evidence showing that current capacity was sufficient to meet New Jersey's natural gas demands and that the precedent agreements with LDCs did not necessarily indicate market need. Additionally, the court found that FERC misinterpreted New Jersey's mandatory energy efficiency laws as unenforceable.The court vacated FERC's orders and remanded the case for further action, requiring FERC to reassess the market need and environmental impacts of the pipeline project. View "New Jersey Conservation Foundation v. FERC" on Justia Law

Federal agents seized packages containing noncompliant plant and animal products shipped to Amazon fulfillment centers in the U.S. by overseas sellers. The Department of Agriculture concluded that Amazon, by providing its fulfillment services, had aided, abetted, caused, or induced the unlawful importation of these products and imposed a $1 million fine on Amazon.The case was initially reviewed by an administrative law judge (ALJ) who granted summary judgment in favor of the Department, finding that Amazon had unlawfully imported the products by aiding, abetting, causing, or inducing their importation. The ALJ rejected Amazon's argument that it was unaware of the sellers' noncompliance, stating that neither bad intent nor any mens rea was required for liability. The Judicial Officer of the Department affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that Amazon's conduct fell within the scope of the statutes and that Amazon had substantially assisted the importations with knowledge.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and set aside the Department's order. The court held that civil aiding-and-abetting liability generally requires conscious and culpable participation in unlawful conduct. The Plant Protection Act and Animal Health Protection Act incorporate this understanding. The court found that Amazon's provision of a neutral fulfillment service did not amount to conscious and culpable participation in the sellers' wrongdoing. Therefore, the court granted Amazon's petition for review, vacated the Department's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Amazon Services LLC v. AGRI" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Louis Paolino and Marie E. Issa, own property in Cumberland, Rhode Island, adjacent to a site operated as an automobile recycling business. The neighboring property, owned by J.F. Realty, LLC and operated by LKQ Route 16 Used Auto Parts, Inc., was found to be contaminated. The Department of Environmental Management (DEM) required remediation, leading the defendants, Commonwealth Engineers & Consulting, Inc., to design a stormwater remediation system. Plaintiffs alleged that this system discharged contaminated water onto their property and encroached on it.In prior litigation, the plaintiffs sued the Ferreira defendants in state court for trespass due to contamination. The case was removed to federal court, where federal claims were dismissed, and state claims were remanded. A jury found encroachment but awarded only nominal damages. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, which was partially granted. On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief for the encroachment, deeming it de minimis, but ordered a new trial on other issues. In a subsequent trial, the jury found no continuing trespass. Plaintiffs also pursued a Clean Water Act claim in federal court, which was dismissed after a bench trial.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Commonwealth. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the issues in the current case were precluded by collateral estoppel. The court found that the issue of contamination had been litigated and decided in prior state and federal actions, and the encroachment was previously determined to be de minimis. Thus, the plaintiffs were barred from relitigating these issues. View "Paolino v. Commonwealth Engineers & Consulting, Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Custer applied for a permit from the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) to discharge treated wastewater into French Creek as part of an upgrade to its wastewater treatment facility. Preserve French Creek, Inc. (Preserve), a group of local citizens, opposed this discharge. Two years after the permit was issued, a Custer County ordinance was passed by citizen initiative, declaring the discharge of treated water into French Creek a nuisance. Preserve demanded the City cease construction based on the new ordinance, but the City did not comply. Preserve then sought mandamus relief to enforce the ordinance, which the circuit court denied.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Custer County found that the ordinance conflicted with state law, specifically SDCL 21-10-2, which states that actions done under the express authority of a statute cannot be deemed a nuisance. The court concluded that the City’s actions, authorized by the DANR permit, could not be considered a nuisance. The court also rejected Preserve’s estoppel argument, stating that the City and County had no duty to enforce an ordinance that conflicted with state law.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the ordinance was preempted by state law because it attempted to declare a nuisance something that state law expressly authorized. The court also found that the City and County were not estopped from asserting the ordinance’s invalidity, as their actions in placing the ordinance on the ballot and canvassing the vote were statutorily required and did not constitute an inconsistent position. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was properly denied. View "Preserve French Creek V. Custer County" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a health advisory in 2022 for HFPO-DA, a chemical found in drinking water. The Chemours Company, which uses HFPO-DA in manufacturing, challenged the advisory, arguing it was unlawful. Chemours contended that the advisory violated procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the nondelegation doctrine.Chemours petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for review, invoking the section of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that allows for review of final actions by the EPA Administrator. Chemours argued that the health advisory was a final agency action, thus subject to judicial review. The EPA, however, maintained that the advisory was not a final action but rather a nonbinding document meant to provide information to decision-makers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the health advisory did not constitute a final agency action because it did not determine any rights or obligations, nor did it have direct and appreciable legal consequences. The court emphasized that the advisory was informational and non-enforceable, and any legal consequences would result from subsequent actions by other entities, not from the advisory itself. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the advisory under the SDWA. View "The Chemours Company FC, LLC v. EPA" on Justia Law

A group of plaintiffs, including several states and corporations, challenged a Department of Labor rule that allowed ERISA fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors when making investment decisions if those factors equally serve the financial interests of the plan. This rule was issued following an executive order by President Biden, which counteracted a previous Trump-era rule that prohibited considering non-pecuniary factors in investment decisions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas upheld the Department of Labor's rule, relying on the Chevron deference doctrine, which allows courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutory language. The district court concluded that the rule was not "manifestly contrary to the statute" after affording the Department the deference due under Chevron.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. During the appeal, the Supreme Court decided Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron, thus eliminating the deference previously given to agency interpretations. Given this significant change in the legal landscape, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the new Supreme Court decision. The appellate court emphasized the importance of allowing the district court to reassess the merits without the Chevron framework, ensuring that the lower court's independent judgment is applied to the statutory interpretation of ERISA. View "State of Utah v. Su" on Justia Law

A developer proposed constructing a 12-unit residential condominium in downtown Lafayette, California, on a parcel mostly occupied by a vacant, dilapidated convalescent hospital. The City of Lafayette determined the project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, classifying it as infill development. Nahid Nassiri, who owns an adjacent office building, challenged this decision, arguing the site had value as habitat for rare species and that the project would significantly affect air quality.The Contra Costa County Superior Court initially granted Nassiri's petition, finding insufficient evidence to support the City's determination that the site had no value as habitat for rare species. However, the court rejected Nassiri's other claims regarding general plan consistency, air quality effects, and mitigation measures. The developer and the City filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the project site, as defined by recent case law, did not include the area with potential habitat. The trial court granted the motion, leading to the denial of Nassiri's petition.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the City's determination that the project site had no value as habitat for rare species, specifically the oak titmouse and Nuttall’s woodpecker. The court also upheld the City's finding that the project would not significantly affect air quality, dismissing Nassiri's reliance on a health risk assessment that did not accurately reflect the project's construction characteristics. Lastly, the court declined to address the "unusual circumstances" exception to the CEQA exemption, as Nassiri did not properly raise this issue in the trial court. The judgment was affirmed. View "Nassiri v. City of Lafayette" on Justia Law

The case involves the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) developing a rulemaking package to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), aimed at reducing CO2 emissions from power plants. The RGGI Regulation faced opposition from the Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) and other state officials, leading to litigation. Three nonprofit environmental organizations (Nonprofits) sought to intervene in the litigation to defend the RGGI Regulation, citing environmental and health concerns.The Commonwealth Court initially denied the Nonprofits' application to intervene, ruling that their interests were adequately represented by DEP. The court also granted a preliminary injunction against the RGGI Regulation. Nonprofits appealed both the denial of intervention and the preliminary injunction.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case. It found that the Nonprofits had established a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in the outcome of the litigation, based on the testimony of their members regarding the adverse health and environmental impacts of CO2 emissions. The court determined that DEP did not adequately represent the Nonprofits' interests, particularly because DEP had not invoked the Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA) in its defense of the RGGI Regulation.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision denying the Nonprofits' application to intervene, allowing them to participate as parties in the ongoing litigation. However, the appeal from the preliminary injunction was dismissed as moot because the Commonwealth Court had already issued a permanent injunction against the RGGI Regulation, superseding the preliminary injunction. View "Shirley v. PA Legislative Reference Bureau" on Justia Law