Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves two companies, Skyline Tower Painting, Inc. (Skyline) and Television Tower, Inc. (TTI), which were sued by a group of plaintiffs for allegedly causing lead paint contamination in a Baltimore neighborhood. TTI owns a TV tower that was coated with lead-based paint, and Skyline was contracted to clean the tower using hydroblasting, a process that dislodged and dispersed the lead paint. The plaintiffs, who own property within a 4000-foot radius of the tower, claimed that the hydroblasting caused lead paint chips and dust to spread throughout their community, posing health risks and reducing property values.The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in Maryland state court, asserting claims for negligence, negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, and strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity. The defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, invoking CAFA’s local-controversy exception. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the motion to remand, finding that the local-controversy exception applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court first determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, despite the defendants also filing petitions for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453. The court dismissed the § 1453 petitions as unnecessary. On the merits, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the local-controversy exception to CAFA applied. The court found that more than two-thirds of the proposed class members were Maryland citizens, and that TTI, a Maryland citizen, was a significant defendant from whom significant relief was sought and whose conduct formed a significant basis for the claims. View "Skyline Tower Painting, Inc. v. Goldberg" on Justia Law

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a 1,000-foot natural-gas pipeline crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The Sierra Club and Public Citizen challenged this approval, arguing that FERC should have exercised jurisdiction over a longer 157-mile pipeline extending into Texas, considered the environmental impact of the entire pipeline, and evaluated alternatives to the border-crossing segment. They also claimed that FERC's approval of the border-crossing pipeline was arbitrary and capricious.The lower court, FERC, concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the 157-mile Connector Pipeline because it did not cross state lines or carry interstate gas upon entering service. FERC conducted an Environmental Assessment for the 1,000-foot Border Facility, found minimal environmental impact, and deemed it in the public interest. After FERC reaffirmed its conclusions on rehearing, the petitioners sought judicial review.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that FERC reasonably declined to exercise jurisdiction over the Connector Pipeline under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, respecting state regulatory authority. The court also found substantial evidence supporting FERC's conclusion that the Connector Pipeline would not transport interstate gas initially, thus not subjecting it to Section 7 jurisdiction. The court rejected the petitioners' claims that FERC's approval of the Border Facility was arbitrary and capricious, noting the presumption favoring authorization under the Natural Gas Act.Regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the court found that FERC reasonably defined the project's purpose and need, appropriately limited its environmental review to the Border Facility, and did not need to consider the upstream Connector Pipeline's impacts. The court denied the petition, affirming FERC's decisions. View "Sierra Club v. FERC" on Justia Law

The American Burying Beetle, the largest carrion beetle in North America, was listed as an endangered species by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1989. In 2015, the Service began reevaluating the Beetle's status, prompted by a petition from private entities. The Service's Species Status Assessment Report revealed that the Beetle's current range is larger than initially thought, with several large, resilient populations across the United States. The Service concluded that the Beetle faces a relatively low near-term risk of extinction but is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future due to future land-use changes and climate change. Consequently, in 2020, the Service downlisted the Beetle from "endangered" to "threatened" and established a Section 4(d) Rule for its conservation.The Center for Biological Diversity challenged the downlisting and the sufficiency of the protections for the Beetle as a threatened species. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment for the Service, concluding that the Downlisting Rule did not violate the Endangered Species Act, was supported by the administrative record, and was reasonably explained. The court also found that the Center failed to establish standing for its challenges to the Section 4(d) Rule.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the Service's conclusion that the Beetle was not endangered at the time of the decision in 2020 was reasonable and consistent with the record evidence. The court also found that the Center lacked standing to challenge the Section 4(d) Rule on appeal. The Service's decision to downlist the Beetle to threatened status was based on the best available scientific and commercial data, and the Service's predictions about the Beetle's future viability were adequately explained and supported by the record. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. FWS" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implementing a cap-and-trade program to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as mandated by the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020. The AIM Act requires an 85% reduction in HFC production and consumption by 2036. The EPA issued a rule in 2021 to allocate allowances for 2022 and 2023 based on historical market share data from 2011 to 2019. In 2023, the EPA issued a new rule for 2024-2028, again using the same historical data.The petitioners, RMS of Georgia, LLC (Choice) and IGas Holdings, Inc. (IGas), challenged the 2024 Rule. Choice argued that the AIM Act violated the nondelegation doctrine by giving the EPA too much discretion in allocating allowances. IGas contended that the EPA's exclusion of 2020 data from its market-share calculations was arbitrary and capricious.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court first addressed Choice's argument, holding that the AIM Act did not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power because it provided sufficient guidance to the EPA, modeled on previous cap-and-trade programs under the Clean Air Act. The court found that Congress intended for the EPA to allocate allowances based on historical market share, providing an intelligible principle to guide the agency's discretion.Regarding IGas's challenge, the court found that the EPA's decision to exclude 2020 data was reasonable. The EPA determined that 2020 data was unrepresentative due to the COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain disruptions and that including it could disrupt the market. The court held that the EPA's methodology was not arbitrary and capricious, as the agency provided a rational explanation for its decision.The court denied both petitions for review, upholding the EPA's 2024 Rule. View "IGas Holdings, Inc. v. EPA" on Justia Law

A farm in Talbot County, Maryland, was the subject of nuisance complaints from neighboring residents due to offensive odors and swarms of insects. The farm, owned by Arthur L. Foster, Sr., and later managed by his son, Arthur L. Foster, Jr., began receiving Class A biosolids and soil conditioners from Denali Water Solutions in January 2021. These materials were stored and applied to the farm, causing strong, foul odors and a midge infestation, which led to numerous complaints from nearby residents.The Talbot County Agricultural Resolution Board (the Board) conducted an investigation and held hearings to determine whether the practices at the farm were generally accepted agricultural practices under Talbot County's Right to Farm (RTF) law, Chapter 128 of the Talbot County Code (TCC). The Board found that the application and stockpiling of the materials were generally accepted agricultural practices and issued recommendations to mitigate the odor.The Circuit Court for Talbot County reversed the Board's decision, finding that the agricultural operations on the farm had not been in existence for one year or more when the complaints were filed, as required by Maryland's RTF law, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-403. The court remanded the case to the Board with instructions to find that the operations did not benefit from protection under the RTF laws.The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the Circuit Court's decision, holding that the expanded use of soil conditioners and biosolids at the farm was a protected activity under both the state and county RTF laws. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's decision that the practices were generally accepted agricultural practices and did not violate public health, safety, and welfare.The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the Appellate Court's decision, holding that the Board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the Board failed to make necessary findings regarding the public health, safety, and welfare impacts of the practices and did not adequately consider whether the stockpiling of materials for use at other locations was a generally accepted agricultural practice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "In re: Foster Farm" on Justia Law

In the 1950s, Goodrich Corporation built a vinyl-manufacturing complex in Calvert City, Kentucky, and used unlined ponds for hazardous waste disposal. In 1988, the EPA declared the site a Superfund site. Goodrich sold the complex to Westlake Vinyls, Inc. in the 1990s, agreeing to cover future cleanup costs. In 2000, PolyOne Corporation (now Avient Corporation) assumed Goodrich’s responsibilities. Disputes arose over cleanup costs, leading to a 2007 settlement agreement that included arbitration provisions for future cost allocations.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky previously reviewed the case. Avient had twice sought arbitration under the agreement, first in 2010 and again in 2017. In 2018, Avient challenged the arbitration provisions' validity, but the district court held that Avient had waived this argument by initiating arbitration. The court enforced the arbitration award, and Avient did not challenge this decision. In 2022, Westlake demanded arbitration, and Avient again claimed the arbitration provisions were invalid. The district court granted summary judgment to Westlake, holding that Avient’s challenge was waived and barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment but on different grounds. The court held that the settlement agreement’s provision for de novo judicial review of arbitration awards was invalid under the Federal Arbitration Act, as established in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. However, the court found that this invalid provision could be severed from the agreement without affecting the economic and legal substance of the transactions contemplated by the parties. Therefore, the arbitration provisions remained valid and enforceable. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Avient Corp. v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc." on Justia Law

GreenPower Motor Company Inc. (GreenPower) and San Joaquin Valley Equipment Leasing, Inc. (San Joaquin Leasing) were involved in the California Hybrid and Zero-Emissions Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP), which subsidizes the price of qualifying electric vehicles (EVs). GreenPower's participation in the HVIP program was suspended following an investigation by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) into their compliance with HVIP requirements. Subsequently, the Attorney General's Office began investigating potential violations of the HVIP program and issued subpoenas to GreenPower and San Joaquin Leasing for documents related to their compliance with HVIP.GreenPower and San Joaquin Leasing filed a petition for writ of mandate in Sacramento County Superior Court to compel CARB to issue vouchers for their EVs. Meanwhile, the Attorney General issued subpoenas as part of a separate investigation. When GreenPower and San Joaquin Leasing did not comply, the Attorney General filed a petition in the City and County of San Francisco Superior Court to enforce the subpoenas. The trial court ordered GreenPower and San Joaquin Leasing to show cause for their non-compliance and eventually required them to produce the requested documents.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce the subpoenas and that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction did not apply because the issues in the Sacramento action and the present proceeding were factually and legally distinct. The court also found that the subpoenas were valid, specific, and relevant to the Attorney General's investigation into potential violations of the HVIP program and the California False Claims Act. The order requiring compliance with the subpoenas was affirmed. View "People ex rel. Bonta v. Greenpower Motor Co." on Justia Law

Janet Cote owns a property that was previously a gas station site. After discovering significant petroleum contamination in the soil, she applied for and received reimbursement from the Petroleum Cleanup Fund (PCF). The Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) later denied further reimbursement for costs associated with a licensed engineer and additional items on Cote’s property. The Environmental Division affirmed the ANR’s decision in part and reversed in part. Cote appealed the denied reimbursements.The Environmental Division held a two-day hearing and concluded that the ANR must reimburse Cote for electrical work, concrete work, and wastewater work, as these were pre-approved and the ANR’s subsequent denial was unreasonable. However, the court upheld the ANR’s denial of costs for a licensed engineer and other punch list items, finding the ANR’s decision reasonable and consistent with the law.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the ANR’s denial of reimbursement for the licensed engineer and punch list items was reasonable. The court found the Environmental Division’s analysis lacking, as it did not adequately explain why the ANR’s denial was reasonable or provide sufficient findings of fact. The court noted that the Environmental Division merely restated the ANR’s conclusory arguments without proper analysis.The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the Environmental Division to make adequate factual findings and any additional conclusions necessary on the disputed reimbursement claims. The court emphasized the need for clear reasoning and analysis to support the decision. View "In re Cote/Maquam Shore Market" on Justia Law

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) sued two landowners, the Schoubroek and Sexton families, alleging that their farms were pumping groundwater originating from the Gila River, infringing on GRIC’s water rights. GRIC sought to stop the pumping and have the wells sealed. The San Carlos Apache Tribe intervened in support of GRIC.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona found that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 and § 1331, rejecting the defendants' argument that the Arizona state court's Gila River Adjudication had exclusive jurisdiction. The district court granted summary judgment for GRIC, concluding that the defendants' wells were pumping subflow from the Gila River and ordered the wells to be shut down. The court also denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on claim preclusion grounds, despite a 2007 dismissal with prejudice of a similar complaint by GRIC.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the district court had jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction. It held that the Decree did not provide the district court with prior exclusive jurisdiction over non-parties to the Decree. The court also found that the Arizona state court did not have prior exclusive jurisdiction over the claims.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment on claim preclusion, recognizing that the 2007 dismissal did not preclude GRIC’s current claims due to the specific context of the settlement agreement. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for GRIC, finding that GRIC had not provided clear and convincing evidence that the wells were pumping subflow or were within the subflow zone. The court vacated the district court's remedy of shutting down the wells and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gila River Indian Community v. Schoubroek" on Justia Law

Energy Transfer LP, involved in the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project, filed a lawsuit in North Dakota against Greenpeace International and others, alleging various tort claims related to the 2016 Standing Rock Protests. Unicorn Riot, a Minnesota-based news organization, and its journalist Niko Georgiades, who reported on the protests, were subpoenaed by Energy Transfer for documents and communications related to the protests. Unicorn Riot objected, citing the Minnesota Free Flow of Information Act (MFFIA), which protects newsgatherers from disclosing unpublished information.The Hennepin County District Court denied Energy Transfer's motion to compel Unicorn Riot to produce the requested documents but ordered Unicorn Riot to produce a privilege log. Both parties appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to compel but reversed the order requiring a privilege log, concluding that the MFFIA prohibits such an order.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the MFFIA applies to newsgatherers even if they engage in unlawful or tortious conduct, as long as the conduct does not fall within the statutory exceptions of Minn. Stat. §§ 595.024–.025. The court also held that the MFFIA does not prevent district courts from ordering the production of a privilege log, but district courts should consider whether producing such a log would impose an undue burden on the responding party.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the appropriate scope of the privilege log, considering potential undue burdens. View "Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International" on Justia Law