The court holds that current Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations enacted pursuant to CAA § 169A do not encompass federally enforceable measures to alleviate "regional haze," and thus the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) decision to take "no action" on those portions of Vermont's state implemen...

The court holds that chemical suppliers are not liable to the owner and operator of a wood treatment facility under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Arkansas's contribution law for the costs of cleaning up a contaminated holding pond. The court ho...

The court holds that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the issuance of a marketing license for a pseudorabies vaccine containing genetically altered material under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act (VSTA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the United States Department of Agriculture Animal ...

On remand from the Fourth Circuit, the court reinstates its civil penalty of almost $1.3 million for violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). The court holds that it properly had jurisdiction when the FWPCA §505 citizen suit was filed. Although defendant's remedial measures ha...

The court holds that plaintiffs' citizen suit under the Clean Air Act (CAA) challenging state and local approval of a proposed commercial development in the Times Square area of New York City fails to state a claim. The court first holds that plaintiffs' claim that the proposed development will crea...

The court holds that leases entered into by a debtor-in-possession after it filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition are valid and cleanup costs incurred by the lessor before the debtor filed for bankruptcy are not entitled to administrative expense priority. The debtor operated a wood treatment plant...

The court holds that environmental groups have standing to challenge a regulation that fails to require federal agencies funding projects in foreign countries to consult with the Secretary of the Interior regarding impacts on endangered species. The court first holds that the plaintiffs need only sa...

The court holds that the district court properly determined that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) to object to a state-issued national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit and assume permitting authority ov...

The court holds that the defendant in a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §107 response cost action is not entitled to the innocent landowner defense as defined in CERCLA §§107(b)(3) and 101(35). The court first holds that there has been a release of h...

The court holds that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its implementing regulations prohibiting the killing of grizzly bears to protect livestock do not violate due process or equal protection. Plaintiff had been fined $2,500 in civil penalties under the ESA for knowingly killing a grizzly bear, ...