The court holds that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not preempt Michigan Solid Waste Management Act (MSWMA) §299.430(4)'s express limitation on the authority of local communities to restrict the location of a waste-to-energy solid waste incinerator, and, therefore, that §299.430(4) preempts a town's...

The court holds that a district court improperly awarded attorney fees in a private-party suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) because the words "enforcement activities" in CERCLA §101(25) do not explicitly authorize the payment of attorney f...

The court holds that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) authorizes a state agency to include base-flow requirements in a water quality certificate required under §401 for the construction of a hydroelectric facility to thwart water quality degradation, and federal law does not preempt ...

The court holds that the district court's factual finding that there had been no release or threat of release of hazardous substances from a site on the National Priorities List was not clearly erroneous in an action by citizens residing near a former Superfund site for response costs under the Comp...

The court holds that a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulation promulgated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) construing the definition of a prohibited "taking" to include the "feeding" of dolphins in the wild is unenforceable. The operators of a dolphin feeding tour boat seek...

The court upholds the dismissal of three Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) citizen suits brought by an association of persons living close to a county landfill against an investment group, alleged to be the landfill operator's alter ego under Indiana corporate law, because the group loan...

The court upholds that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regulations promulgated under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) defining "harm" to endangered species as a prohibited taking, and a regulation promulgated under ESA §4(d) that extends the prohibitions established for endangered species ...

The court holds that regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior (DOI) establishing habitat modification as a form of "harm" prohibited by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and extending to threatened species all protections afforded to endangered species under the ESA do not violate th...

The court holds that developers who paid a fine for construction of a road without a permit in an environmentally sensitive parcel are entitled to a refund of the portion of the fine intended for restoration that did not need to be performed. The court holds that planting trees is not necessary to r...

The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to comply with a prior remand order directing the Agency to produce more than unsupported assumptions for its decision to list a smelting facility on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act n...