Seven County Infastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado

The Court ruled in favor of San Francisco in a dispute over whether the Clean Water Act lets the EPA impose generic prohibitions in discharge permits that expose permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards.· AI-written

In an administrative law dispute brought by fishing companies challenging a fisheries service rule, the Court overruled Chevron deference and assigned the determination of statutory ambiguity to the courts instead of deferring to agencies.· AI-written

The Court held that the Clean Water Act covers only wetlands that have a "continuous surface connection" to "waters of the United States" connected to "traditional interstate navigable waters".· AI-written

In a dispute over who paid to clean up the Ordot Dump on Guam, the Court ruled unanimously that Guam had timely filed its Superfund suit to recover part of the cleanup costs from the United States, so the case could proceed.· AI-written

In a dispute over a Forest Service permit for a pipeline under the Appalachian Trail, the Court ruled that the Trail's assignment to the NPS did not make its lands NPS lands, so the Forest Service could issue the permit.· AI-written

The Court ruled that under the Clean Water Act, pollutant discharges from a non-point source that reach navigable waters, such as through groundwater, require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge."· AI-written

The court held that landowners are "potentially responsible parties" under CERCLA and therefore need approval from the EPA before taking any action to restore their properties related to a Superfund site.

In disputes over National Park Service authority in Alaska under ANILCA, the Court ruled the Service may regulate only "public" lands, and later unanimously held navigable waters are "non-public" lands exempt from its regulations.· AI-written

The Court, in a unanimous decision, vacated the 5th Circuit's ruling that upheld the designation of private land in Louisiana as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog and sent the case back for further review.· AI-written

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".

In disputes over National Park Service authority in Alaska under ANILCA, the Court ruled the Service may regulate only "public" lands, and later unanimously held navigable waters are "non-public" lands exempt from its regulations.· AI-written

The Court held that the EPA must consider costs, and that it interpreted the Clean Air Act unreasonably when it decided it did not need to consider costs in finding that regulation was "necessary and appropriate."· AI-written

In a case about the EPA's regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act, the Court, in a divided decision, largely upheld the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse emissions.· AI-written

The court held that the Clean Air Act does not require that states be given a second opportunity to file a state implementation plan after the Environmental Protection Agency has quantified interstate pollution obligations under a reasonable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision.

The Court held that a Clean Water Act provision governing challenges to EPA actions did not bar a citizen suit against an alleged violator seeking to enforce CWA obligations, and that the case was not moot despite interim regulations.· AI-written

The Court unanimously reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit, holding that water flowing from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of it is not a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.· AI-written

The Court ruled that, because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

The court held that the equal-footing doctrine gives a state title to a segment of a river if that segment was navigable at the time the state enters the union; else, it remained in control of the federal government and could be sold by the government.

The Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Court reversed the lower court's decision barring partial deregulation of Monsanto's genetically modified Roundup-ready alfalfa pending completion of an environmental impact statement, finding the district court abused its discretion in enjoining it.· AI-written

Was decided in favor of Coeur Alaska's permit to dump mine waste in a lake.

The court held that to be an "arranger" under CERCLA requires the specific intent to dispose toxic waste.

In a dispute over whether federal law restricted the Navy's use of sonar in drills because of possible harm to marine mammals, the Court's majority sided with national security over environmental concerns.· AI-written

The Court held that Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act applies only to federal agency actions involving agency discretion or control, so the EPA did not need to apply additional criteria when evaluating a transfer of Clean Water Act pollution control jurisdiction.· AI-written

The court held that, because the CERCLA's Section 107(a)(4)(B) allows a potentially responsible party (PRP) to recover costs from other PRPs, the statute provides a private cause of action to achieve that result with a lawsuit.

The Court held that while a term may be used more than once in a statute, an agency has the discretion to interpret each use of the term in a different way based on the context.

In a challenge to federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over wetlands, the Court voided the rulings against the defendants and remanded the case, though the justices were split over the reasoning and the meaning of "navigable waters."· AI-written

In a dispute over Clean Water Act licensing requirements, the Court ruled unanimously that hydroelectric dams were subject to section 401, since the simple flowing of water from a dam qualified as a "discharge" under its ordinary meaning.· AI-written

The court held that a private party can seek contribution under CERCLA's §113(f) only after being sued under §106 or §107(a).

The Court held that although the Administrative Procedure Act says that a person may challenge an agency's failure to act, this provision essentially just carries forward the writ of mandamus.

The court held that, because FMCSA lacks discretion to prevent cross-border operations of Mexican motor carriers, neither NEPA nor the CAA requires FMCSA to evaluate the environmental effects of such operations.

The Court decided sand and gravel are not "valuable minerals" reserved to the United States Government under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919.

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court found the EPA has authority to overrule state agency decisions under the Clean Air Act that a company is using the "best available controlling technology" to prevent pollution.

In a challenge to EPA's national air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, the Court rejected the view that the Administrator could weigh implementation costs in setting the standards.· AI-written

The Court held that the Corps of Engineers' use of the "migratory bird rule" to extend Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting authority to isolated waters, including isolated wetlands, exceeded the authority granted by that section.· AI-written

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the indirect liability of a parent corporation under CERCLA is to be determined by its control over a subsidiary's facility, rather than the relationship between the corporation and subsidiary.

In a dispute over whether a state could impose minimum water flow requirements on a proposed hydropower dam under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Court ruled in favor of the state.· AI-written

The Court ruled unanimously that the government does have the power to control intrastate wetlands as waters of the United States.

The Court considered a challenge to the EPA's 1981 change in its definition of "source" under the Clean Air Act, overturned the lower court's decision, and ruled for Chevron because courts should broadly defer to the agency.· AI-written

In a challenge to the Tellico Dam's construction over the endangered snail darter, the Court ruled for the plaintiffs and upheld an injunction, finding the dam's operation would conflict with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.· AI-written

The Supreme Court of the United States held that states could not discriminate against another state's articles of commerce.

Unanimously held the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, passed in 1971 by the United States Congress to protect these animals from "capture, branding, harassment, or death", to be a constitutional exercise of congressional power.

The Court held that the EPA must approve a State Implementation Plan if it meets the criteria under the Clean Air Act.

The Court held that the members of SCRAP—five law students from the George Washington University Law School—had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC).

The Court rejected a lawsuit by the Sierra Club seeking to block the development of a ski resort at Mineral King valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains because the club had not alleged any injury.