By Max E. Bridges
On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that it has jurisdiction to review challenges to the “Clean Water Rule.” As previously detailed on this blog, the Clean Water Rule was promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to clarify and expand the reach of the Clean Water Act which is controlled by the phrase “waters of the United States.” But there has been intense opposition to the rule and it is now subject to more than 20 separate challenges filed by numerous states and interest groups. A number of these challenges were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit and in October, the Sixth Circuit stayed the rule nationwide, concluding that the challengers demonstrated a “substantial possibility of success.”
In yesterday’s decision, the Sixth Circuit panel concluded that it has jurisdiction to hear the consolidated challenges to the Clean Water Rule under Sixth Circuit precedent and 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Unless the EPA or the Army Corps can obtain a hearing on this jurisdiction question before all of the Judges of the Sixth Circuit and/or it’s reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in either case, have the decision overturned, the Sixth Circuit will be the first court to decide the validity of the Clean Water Rule.
By Max E. Bridges
In November, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not preempt state common law tort claims. It reached this conclusion in an action by property owners who allege that ethanol emissions from Diageo Americas Supply whiskey aging warehouses harm their property. Merrick v. Diageo Americas Supply, Inc., 14-6198, 2015 WL 6646818 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2015). The plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class, allege that the ethanol emissions combine with condensation to promote the growth of an unsightly and difficult to remove “whiskey fungus.” They filed a class action lawsuit in federal District Court alleging that under the Kentucky common law of negligence, trespass and nuisance, they are entitled to an injunction mandating that Diageo capture and control the emissions, and recover damages. Diageo sought to have the action dismissed, arguing that plaintiffs’ state law claims are preempted by the CAA because they “conflict with the Clean Air Act methods for regulating emissions and, therefore, that allowing such claims to proceed would frustrate the purposes and objective of the Act.” Id. at *4. The District Court rejected this defense but certified the question to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Writing for the three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit, Judge Rogers affirmed the District Court’s decision to reject Diageo’s preemption defense: “The Clean Air Act’s text makes clear that the Act does not preempt such claims,” he wrote. Id. at *1. In addressing arguments that a Continue reading Sixth Circuit Rejects Clean Air Act Preemption Argument