The D.C. Circuit remanded an EPA rule that retroactively altered allowances for controlling the production, import, and export of hydrochlorofluorocarbons that had been allowed under prior regulations. A 2003 rule allowed both inter-pollutant and intercompany transfers of allowances, but in the 2010...

A district court held that an environmental group's claims against an electric company for violating PSD requirements before making major modifications to one of its plants are time barred, but it stayed final entry of the judgment pending the ruling of the Seventh Circuit in a similar case. PSD obl...

The court holds that although it has jurisdiction to hear an individual's claim for damages against a city for disrupting his construction project, the individual's due process rights were not violated. The individual was granted the necessary permits to begin preparing the site for the construction...

The court holds that the owner of a retail development lacked standing to bring Federal-Aid Highway Act (FAHA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) actions against the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) for failing to prevent a county from approving the...

The court holds that county ordinance provisions directing solid waste to designated in-state facilities do not discriminate against interstate commerce; however, provisions that prevent the delivery of waste to out-of-state processors violate the U.S. Commerce Clause. The court first holds that the...

The court holds that an 11-month period between the publication of a new statutory fee for unpatented mining claims and the compliance deadline afforded a claim holder a reasonable opportunity to comply with the deadline, and, thus, did not violate his procedural due process rights. Pursuant to the ...

The court holds that a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation that creates a 12-month grace period exempting transportation projects in nonattainment and maintenance areas from Clean Air Act (CAA) §176(c) is contrary to the plain meaning of the CAA. The court first holds that an envi...

The court holds that a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service warrant and subsequent search violated homeowners' Fourth Amendment constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures when two cable television networks accompanied the search. The court first holds that collateral estoppel does no...

The court holds that Endangered Species Act (ESA) §9(a)(1)'s application to a fly that exists only in California is within Congress' Commerce Clause power. The court first holds that the application of ESA §9 to the fly can be viewed as a proper exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power over act...