Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioners challenge the EPA's action disapproving Oklahoma’s and Texas’s plans for controlling regional haze and imposing EPA’s own plans instead. The court denied EPA’s motion to dismiss or transfer because the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, gives jurisdiction over petitions for review to the courts of appeal generally and because the Act’s forum selection clause designates the regional circuit as the appropriate venue for this challenge. The court granted the motion for a stay pending resolution of the petitions for review on the merits because petitioners have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, because they are likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of a stay while EPA has not shown similar injury from the issuance of a stay, and because the public interest weighs in favor of a stay. View "State of Texas v. EPA" on Justia Law

Landowners challenged the Service's final designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog. The district court granted summary judgment for Landowners on the issue of standing and granted summary judgment for the Service on the merits. The court concluded that Landowners have standing to challenge the Service’s critical-habitat designation. The court also concluded that the designation of Unit 1 as critical habitat was not arbitrary and capricious nor based upon an unreasonable interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531, where the Service reasonably determined (1) that designating occupied habitat alone would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the dusky gopher frog and (2) that Unit 1 is essential for the conservation of the frog. Even if the court assumed that Landowners are correct that the economic benefits of exclusion outweigh the conservation benefits of designation, the Service is still not obligated to exclude Unit 1. That decision is committed to the agency’s discretion and is not reviewable. Because Landowners concede that the critical habitat provision of the ESA is a valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, the court can likewise conclude that the application of the ESA’s critical habitat provision to Unit 1 is a constitutional exercise of the Commerce Clause power. Finally, the court concluded that the Service was not required to complete an environmental impact statement before designating Unit 1 as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog, and Landowners lack standing to sue to enforce the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Markle Interests v. US Fish & Wildlife Serv." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Exxon, alleging that Exxon violated the federal permits governing operations at the Baytown industrial complex thousands of times over a nearly eight year period. The district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law denying most of plaintiffs’ claims and declining to order any relief. Exxon's Baytown industrial complex is governed by the five federal operating permits issued under Title V of the the Clean Air Act (CCA), 42 U.S.C. 7661a-7661d. The court concluded that the district court erred in its analysis of Exxon’s liability under Counts I through IV and abused its discretion in assessing three of the CAA’s mandatory penalty factors. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for assessment of penalties based on the violations that are properly considered “actionable” in light of this opinion. View "Environment Texas Citizen Lobby v. ExxonMobil" on Justia Law

After inspectors found 130,000 barrels of oil floating atop uncovered equalization tanks, CITGO was convicted of multiple violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7413 and 40 C.F.R. 60.690 et seq. (Subpart QQQ), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703. On appeal, CITGO challenged the district court's CAA convictions, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erroneously instructed the jury about the scope of a regulation concerning "oil-water separators." The court concluded that Subpart QQQ’s text, the overall regulatory scheme, and its promulgation history point to the inescapable conclusion that an equalization tank is not an “oil-water separator.” Because the district court misstated the scope of the regulation, its jury instruction was erroneous and this omission affected the outcome. Therefore, CITGO’s CAA convictions must be reversed. The court also concluded that CITGO's MBTA convictions must be reversed because the court agreed with the Eighth and Ninth circuits that a “taking” is limited to deliberate acts done directly and intentionally to migratory birds. The court's conclusion is based on the statute’s text, its common law origin, a comparison with other relevant statutes, and rejection of the argument that strict liability can change the nature of the necessary illegal act. View "United States v. CITGO Petroleum Corp." on Justia Law

Congress passed the Clean Water Act "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The Act bans "the discharge of any pollutant by any person," unless affirmatively allowed by law. This case began when a group of environmental organizations petitioned the EPA to "use its powers [pursuant to section 1313(c)(4)(B)] to control nitrogen and phosphorous pollution" within the Mississippi River Basin and the Northern Gulf of Mexico. The EPA declined to do so. While the agency agreed that nitrogen and phosphorous pollution "is a significant water quality problem," it did "not believe that the comprehensive use of federal rulemaking authority is the most effective or practical means of addressing these concerns at this time." The petitioners filed suit, arguing the EPA had violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the CWA by declining to make a necessity determination. The EPA moved to dismiss the case on subject matter jurisdiction grounds, arguing that the decision whether to make a necessity determination was a discretionary act that the court lacked authority to review. The parties also cross-moved for summary judgment on the merits. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in "Massachusetts v. EPA" the district court held that the "EPA could not simply decline to make a necessity determination in response to . . . [the] petition for rulemaking." It remanded the case to the agency with orders to conduct a necessity determination. In doing so, the district court declined to issue specific guidance on "the types of factors that EPA can or cannot consider when actually making the necessity determination." This appeal followed. The Fifth Circuit surmised this case posed two questions: (1) whether it had subject matter jurisdiction to review the EPA's decision not to make a necessity determination; and (2) was the EPA required to make such a determination. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the EPA was not required to make such a determination. View "Gulf Restoration Network v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

Borg Warner appealed the district court's determination that it is liable to Vine Street for 75% of the costs associated with cleaning up a plume of perchlorethylene (PERC) that discharged from a dry cleaning business under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3), and the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act (TSWDA), Tex. Health & Safety Code 361.271(a)(3). The liability was associated with a former subsidiary of Borg Warner, Norge, which furnished dry cleaning equipment, design assistance, and an initial supply of PERC to the cleaning business. The court concluded that Borg Warner is entitled to judgment in its favor on the CERCLA and TSWDA claims because Norge did not intentional y dispose of a waste product when it sold dry cleaning equipment and an initial supply of PERC to the dry cleaning business. The court noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States changed the relevant law while this case was on appeal. Therefore, the court held that the district court's decision cannot stand in light of Burlington Northern. View "Vine Street LLC v. Keeling" on Justia Law

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") issued Austin Industrial Specialty Services, L.P. a citation for violations of hazardous-chemical regulations promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. After a hearing, the administrative law judge affirmed two items in the citation: (1) failure to identify and evaluate respiratory hazards in the workplace; and (2) failure to provide employee training regarding certain hazardous chemicals. The ALJ vacated the other three items. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission denied discretionary review, and Austin filed a petition in this court, seeking to overturn the administrative law judge's decision on several grounds. Finding no reversible error, the Fifth Circuit denied Austin's petition. View "Austin Industrial Spclt Svc v. OSHC, et al" on Justia Law

Belle filed suit challenging the Corps' issuance of a jurisdictional determination (JD) stating that the property owned by Belle contains wetlands that are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the JD was not a "final agency action" and was therefore not reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq.View "Belle Co., L.L.C., et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" on Justia Law

Petitioners, owners of two power plants, challenged the legal sufficiency of the notice of violation issued by the EPA under Section 7413(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(a). The EPA filed a second, amended notice of violation and moved to dismiss the petitions for want of jurisdiction. Petitioners challenged the sufficiency of the second notice. The court dismissed the petitions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the notices were not "final actions" of the EPA.View "Luminant Generation Co., L.L.C, et al. v. EPA, et al." on Justia Law

TAP filed suit against TCEQ under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., seeking an injunction prohibiting TCEQ from issuing new permits to withdraw water from rivers that feed the estuary where whooping cranes make their winter homes. The district court granted the injunction, which also required TCEQ to seek an incidental-take permit (ITP) from the FWS. Because the deaths of the whooping cranes are too remote from TCEQ's permitting withdrawal of water from the San Antonio and Guadalupe Rivers, the state defendants could not be held liable for a take or for causing a take under the Act. The court concluded that the district court misapplied proximate cause analysis and, even if proximate cause had been proven, the injunction was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "The Aransas Project v. Shaw, et al." on Justia Law