As part of the "Environmental & Energy Cert. Petition Watch" project, in the past week, the following EHS-related petitions have been filed, denied, or granted. For a full list of EHS-related cert petitions submitted from August 2013 through the present (as of January 20, 2014), click here.
I. FILED
Village of Hobart v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, No. 13-847
Lower Court: 7th Cir.
Subject: Clean Water Act
Question(s) Presented: (1.) Whether Congress' waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity, under § 313(a) of the CWA, for enforcement of local stormwater management ordinances, for "any property" over which it has "jurisdiction," applies to land taken into trust pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465. (2.) Whether lands acquired by an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465, within its former *ii reservation boundaries are, removed from state jurisdiction because, as the Seventh Circuit ruled, they are reclassified as "Indian Country."
Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/13-847.htm
In re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation, No. 13-842
Lower Court: 2d. Cir.
Subject: Clean Air Act
Question(s) Presented: (1.) Whether a claim is ripe when it is predicated on a plaintiff's potential future injury and mere good faith intent to take steps in 15 to 20 years that could, depending on a chain of uncertain events, cause the plaintiff to suffer an actual injury some day in the future. (2.) Whether the federal oxygenate mandate in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 7545 (2000), preempts a state-law tort award that imposes retroactive liability on a manufacturer for using the safest, feasible means available at the time for complying with that mandate.
Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/13-842.htm
II. DENIED
Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/Loral, LLC, No. 13-412
Lower Court: 9th Cir.
Subject: CERCLA
Question(s) Presented: May a subrogated insurer, after paying environmental response costs its insured incurred remediating a contaminated site, step into the insured's shoes and pursue, against the persons responsible for the pollution, the cost-recovery action its insured could have pursued under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) section 107(a), or did Congress intend, as the Ninth Circuit's divided panel has held here, to restrict CERCLA subrogation rights in such circumstances to persons who compensate "claimants" under section 112, compelling insured remediators to satisfy a pre-suit claim requirement that was enacted to apply only to persons who seek reimbursement from the Superfund, not to civil actions under section 107(a).
Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-412.htm
American Road & Transp. Builders Ass'n v. EPA, No. 13-145
Lower Court: D.C. Cir.
Subject: Clean Air Act
Question(s) Presented: (1.) Does [CAA] §307(b)(1) allow petitioning for direct review within 60 days of the denial of a [5 U.S.C.] §553(e) petition that presents after-arising issues? (2.) Does §307(b)(1) prohibit indirect review of an agency rule – outside the original 60-day window – if made as part of a timely challenge to new agency action that applies the prior rule?
Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-145.htm
III. GRANTED
(None.)