Term: 2017
Docket: 16-299
National Association Of Manufacturers v. Department Of Defense
- Pro
16-299 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS V. DEPT. OF DEFENSE DECISION BELOW: 817 F.3d 261 CERT. GRANTED 1/13/2017 QUESTION PRESENTED: In June 2015, respondent agencies promulgated a final rule defining the term "the waters of the United States" and hence the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The National Association of Manufacturers challenged that rule in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act. State, municipal, industry, and environmental challengers likewise filed APA suits, but in addition filed protective petitions for review in the courts of appeals, citing uncertainty about whether the rule challenge falls under the CWA's judicial review provision, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(l). The petitions for review were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit. The NAM intervened as respondent in the Sixth Circuit and moved to dismiss the petitions for want of jurisdiction. After full briefing and argument, the Sixth Circuit held that it, not the district courts, has jurisdiction to decide challenges to the rule. But only one judge actually believed that to be the correct outcome. Although two panel members concluded that § 1369(b)(1) precludes jurisdiction, one of them reasoned that he was bound by "incorrect" circuit precedent to take jurisdiction under § 1369(b)(1)(F), which requires that agency actions "in issuing or denying any permit under" § 1342 be reviewed by the court of appeals. This recurring jurisdictional issue has divided the circuits, wasted judicial and party resources, and delayed the resolution of important rule challenges. The question presented is whether the Sixth Circuit erred when it held that it has jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(F) to decide petitions to review the waters of the United States rule, even though the rule does not "issu[e] or den[y] any permit" but instead defines the waters that fall within Clean Water Act jurisdiction. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-3751
The case National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 2017 revolved around the question of which courts have jurisdiction over challenges to the Clean Water Rule, a regulation defining "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The rule was jointly issued by Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps Engineers in 2015. Several industry groups, states and environmental organizations filed lawsuits against it in both federal district courts and appellate courts. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that litigation over such disputes belongs at first instance in federal district court rather than directly to appeals court as per government's claim based on CWA provision listing seven specific actions for direct circuit-court review. This decision clarified an important point about judicial procedure but did not address any substantive issues regarding scope or validity of Clean Water Rule itself.
The dissenting opinion in the case of National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, argued that the Clean Water Act does not restrict legal challenges to the Waters of United States (WOTUS) rule to only federal appeals courts. The dissenters believed that district courts should be able to hear such cases as well because nothing in the text, structure or purpose of the law clearly indicates otherwise. They pointed out that limiting jurisdiction could delay resolution on important rules and regulations due to a backlog at appellate level. Furthermore, they contended this limitation would create an unnecessary procedural complexity which contradicts Congress's intent for efficient litigation process under Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Therefore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation and application of Section 1369(b)(1)’s judicial review provisions.
