On December 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided the case of Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, et al., v. North Carolina Department of Transportation, et al. The Fourth Circuit concluded that, “[b]ecause events beyond the parties’ control have mooted this appeal, leaving the district court’s judgment undisturbed would not serve the public interest.” Continue Reading ›
On December 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the case of United States of America, e ex rel. Jeffrey M. Simoneaux v. E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company. Reversing the district court, the Fifth Circuit held that “potential or contingent penalties” are not obligations under the federal False Claims Act (FCA) and they are not obligations under the FCA “even when a statute requires immediate action from a violator,[because] the Government must still choose whether to impose a penalty.” Continue Reading ›
On December 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling holding that a lower court’s decision dismissing the federal government’s civil claim that the defendants were at fault in connection with a spill of clarified slurry oil had preclusive effect upon the government’s later-filed criminal enforcement case in the same matter. The case is U.S. v. Egan Marine Corporation and Dennis Michael Egan. Continue Reading ›
Below is a snapshot of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act 
(S. 612) passed late last week by the Congress. The President has indicated that he will sign the bill.
On December 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided the case of United States v. Board of County Commissioners of Otero County, New Mexico. The Tenth Circuit held that a New Mexico statute and resolution adopted by the Otero County Board of County Commissioners (Board) which purported to authorize the Board to take unilateral steps to mitigate the fire dangers posed by very dry conditions in the Lincoln National Forest were preempted by federal law. The Tenth Circuit, affirming the lower court, ruled that the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution authorized the federal government to promulgate rules governing the use of the national forests and, insofar as local laws intended to abate these dangers conflicted with federal law, they were preempted.
On December 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the case of Japanese Village, LLC v. Federal Transit Administration, et al., affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgement to the government defendants following a painstaking review of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) arguments lodged by Japanese Village, LLC and Today’s IV, Inc. dba Westin Bonaventure Hotel (Bonaventure) against the construction of the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project, a 1.9-mile light rail extension line in downtown Los Angeles.
Today, our colleagues Kevin Ashe and Rebecca Lee published an alert on the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent listing of certain chemicals as subject to review for risks to human health and to the environment. EPA’s actions follow recent amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act requiring it to timely complete risk assessments for chemicals manufacture, distributed and imported to the U.S. They encourage companies with U.S. operations to consider the implications if they use chemicals that have been list or may be listed by the EPA. The alert is titled Toxic Substances Control Act Overhaul.
On November 23, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that the Surface Transportation Board has exclusive jurisdiction over “railroad repair work done at the direction of a federally regulated rail carrier but performed by a contractor rather than the carrier itself.” The case is Oregon Scenic Coast Railway, LLC v. State of Oregon Department of State Lands. Continue Reading ›
On November 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued three unanimous decisions affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii’s rulings that three local county ordinances—enacted by the counties of Maui, Kauai and Hawaii—are preempted by the laws of the State of Hawaii or the federal Plant Protection Act (PPA), 7 U.S.C. § 7756(b). The ordinances purported to regulate pesticides and genetically engineered plants or even banning the cultivation and testing of genetically-engineered plants. The published opinions are Atay, et al., v. County of Maui, et al., and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al., v. County of Kauai. The unpublished opinion is Hawai’i Papaya Industry Assoc., et al., v. County of Hawaii.
The Maui County ordinance was the result of a citizens’ initiative, and the Kauai ordinance was enacted in the regular course of county business. In the Syngenta Seeds case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the “field preemption” test devised by the Hawaii Supreme Court required the rejection of Kauai County ordinance. In the Atay case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the provisions of the Maui County ordinance were preempted by both the PPA and impliedly by the laws of the State of Hawaii.
In the third case, the Ninth Circuit held that a recently-enacted ordinance of the County of Hawaii which bans the “open air testing of genetically engineered organisms of any kind” and “open air cultivation, propagation, development or testing of genetically engineered crops of plants” was preempted by federal and state law.
On November 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided the case of State of Missouri ex rel. Chris Koster, et al., v. Harris, in which it largely affirmed the lower court’s decision that the States of Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky and Iowa lack standing to challenge the California laws and policies that mandate that no eggs can be sold in California that are the produced in states that do not adhere to California’s conditions under which chickens must be kept. One lesson to draw from this is that it’s very difficult to persuade the courts that the Commerce Clause always limits what the state legislatures can do. Continue Reading ›
Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog