The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over a lower court's partial grant of summary judgment in favor of the parent company of a chemical plant in Bhopal, India, that allegedly caused soil and groundwater contamination. Property owners and residents near the plant sought monetary and ...

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear environmental groups' claims against U.S. Customs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries for allowing threatened and endangered salmon to be imported from Canada into the United States ...

The Ninth Circuit held that federal law preempts Washington State's Cleanup Priority Act, a statute enacted through the passage of a voter initiative. The Act was intended to "prevent the addition of new radioactive and hazardous waste" at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation site until cleanup of existi...

The Federal Circuit held that conservation groups lack standing to pursue their Endangered Species Act (ESA) §9 claim against various federal agencies and officials for failing to enforce a ban on importing endangered and threatened fish but that they may have standing to challenge the agencies...

The court holds that, as applied to industrial truck manufacturers and distributors, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) hazard communication standard (HCS) preempt enforcement of the occupational warning requirements unde...

The court holds that a Wisconsin farming family's state-law claims against a pesticide manufacturer are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The family filed negligence and fraudulent representation claims based on the manufacturer's alleged off-label stateme...

The court holds that a U.S. Forest Service proposal for a logging project and road extension in the Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but not the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The court first holds that neither the district cour...

The court holds that oil pollution claims arising under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) are not subject to the Limitation of Shipowner's Liability Act of 1851 or to the concursus of claims under Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Ci...

The court holds that 15 of Washington State's 16 best achievable protection (BAP) oil spill prevention regulations are not preempted by federal law. The court first holds that the BAP regulations are not preempted by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). OPA §1018 provides that nothing in the OPA preempts s...