Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.

Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.

Argued March 30, 2016
Decided May 31, 2016
Full case name United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., et al.
Docket nos. 15–290
Citations

578 U.S. ___ (more)

Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Prior history On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Roberts, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
Concurrence Kennedy, joined by Thomas, Alito
Concurrence Kagan
Concurrence Ginsburg (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)
Laws applied
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704

Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Clean Water Act jurisdictional determination issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because jurisdictional determinations constitute "final agency action".[1]

Background

The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into "waters of the United States" with a valid permit.[2] Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether property contains waters of the United States, the United States Army Corps of Engineers issues jurisdictional determinations (on a case-by-case basis) that specify whether property contains waters of the United States.[3] In this case, the United States Army Corps of Engineers issued a jurisdictional determination, which stated that property owned by peat mine operators in Marshall County, Minnesota included waters of the United States because it contained wetlands that "had a 'significant nexus' to the Red River of the North".[4] The mine operators filed suit to challenge the Corps's jurisdictional determination under the Administrative Procedure Act, but the district court ruled that it could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction because the jurisdictional determination did not constitute "final agency action".[5] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the case.[6]

Opinion of the Court

In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdictional determination was reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because it constituted final agency action, and even if it did not, "there are adequate alternatives for challenging it in court."[7] Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, where he argued that "the Court is right to construe a [jurisdictional determination] as binding in light of the fact that in many instances it will have a significant bearing on whether the Clean Water Act comports with due process."[8] Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which she argued that jurisdictional determinations are reviewable because "legal consequences will flow" from the Corps' determinations.[9] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment in which she argued that there was nothing tentative or informal about jurisdictional determinations, and that the Corps' determinations have "an immediate and practical impact."[10]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., No. 15–290, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1, 5, (2016).
  2. ↑ 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(7), 1362(12).
  3. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 2-3 (citing 33 CFR § 331.2).
  4. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 3-4.
  5. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 4.
  6. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 4-5.
  7. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 5-10.
  8. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 2 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
  9. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 1 (Kagan, J., concurring) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
  10. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 1 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (citing Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40, 44 (1956)) (internal quotations omitted).

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 6/24/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.