Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Environmental Law : From 10/01/03 To 07/01/04
Number of summaries found: 7
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Environmental Law, Transportation |
| Title: | NORTON v. S. UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE |
| Date: | 06/14/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-101 |
| Summary: | The Bureau of Land Management's alleged failure to protect state lands from environmental damage caused by off-road vehicles was not remediable under the Administrative Procedure Act. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Environmental Law, Transportation |
| Title: | DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. PUB. CITIZEN |
| Date: | 06/07/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-358 |
| Summary: | Because the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration lacks discretion to prevent operations of cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers, neither the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 nor the Clean Air Act requires FMCSA to evaluate the effects of such operations. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Autos, Environmental Law |
| Title: | ENGINE MFRS. ASS'N v. S. COAST AIR QUALITY MGMT. DIST. |
| Date: | 04/28/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1343 |
| Summary: | Local Fleet Rules generally prohibiting the purchase or lease by various public and private fleet operators of vehicles that do not comply with stringent emission requirements appear to be preempted, in whole or in part, by section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Rules do not escape preemption just because they address the purchase of vehicles, rather than their manufacture or sale. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Environmental Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Water Law, Mining Law |
| Title: | BEDROC LTD., LLC v. US |
| Date: | 03/31/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1593 |
| Summary: | Sand and gravel are not "valuable minerals" reserved to the US in land grants issued under the Pittman Underground Water Act. Sand and gravel are abundant throughout Nevada, they have no intrinsic value, and they were commercially worthless when the Act was passed in 1919. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Environmental Law, Water Law |
| Title: | S. FLORIDA WATER MGMT. DIST. v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS |
| Date: | 03/23/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-626 |
| Summary: | This suit, brought under the Clean Water Act and alleging that the removal of phosphorus-laden water from the C-11 canal into the WCA-3 wetland requires a permit per the Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, is remanded for further proceedings regarding whether C-11 and WCA-3 are meaningfully distinct water bodies. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Construction, Environmental Law |
| Title: | ALASKA DEP'T OF ENVTL. CONSERVATION v. EPA |
| Date: | 01/21/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-658 |
| Summary: | The Clean Air Act authorizes defendant to stop construction of a major pollutant emitting facility permitted by a state authority when it finds that the authority's "best available control technology" determination is unreasonable in light of 42 U.S.C. section 7479(3)'s prescribed guides. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Water Law |
| Title: | VIRGINIA v. MARYLAND |
| Date: | 12/09/03 |
| Case Number: | 129 |
| Summary: | The Black-Jenkins Award, which established the boundaries of control of the Potomac River, gives Virginia sovereign authority, free from regulation by Maryland, to build improvements appurtenant to her shore and to withdraw water from the River, subject to the constraints of federal common law and the Award. Virginia did not lose her sovereign riparian rights by acquiescing in Maryland's regulation of her water withdrawal and waterway construction activities. |