The court denies a gold mining company's motion to dismiss and motions for summary judgment in a Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suit action that an environmental group brought against the company for violating CWA §303 by discharging pollutants without a national pollutant discharge eliminati

The court holds that Clean Water Act (CWA) §404 does not allow the filling of U.S. waters solely for waste disposal, and, therefore, enjoined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from issuing any further permits allowing the valley fill of overburden waste from mountaintop removal.

The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was not arbitrary and capricious in its promulgation of pollutant discharge limitations for the bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory of the pulp and paper industry.

The court affirms in part and vacates in part a district court order requiring the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) to disclose to Maine certain documents relating to efforts to list Atlantic salmon in eight rivers in Maine as endangered.

The court affirms a district court dismissal of an environmental group's Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suit claiming that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had a non-discretionary duty to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the state of California.

The court vacates a district court order granting a permanent injunction restraining environmental groups and the government from interfering with the construction or operation of a multi-site hog production facility on tribal trust land.

The court holds that the owner of an Illinois Superfund site can bring a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §107 action against numerous third-party companies that allegedly contributed to the contamination at the site. The U.S.

The court holds that the U.S.

The court vacates a district court decision holding that the Endangered Species Act's (ESA's) take provision was a valid exercise of Congress' enumerated powers because the case does not present a case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

The Court holds that moratoria on development imposed during the process of devising a comprehensive land use plan do not constitute a per se taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.