Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 19:42, 31 August 2022 by Kate Carsella (contribs) (Text replacement - "was a case" to "is a case")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: October 11, 2017
Decided: January 22, 2018
Outcome
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0 to vacate and remand
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch


National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on October 11, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

The case presented a significant question of the proper jurisdiction to challenge administrative actions under the Clean Water Act. On January 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled that challenges to the Waters of the United States rule must be filed in federal district court.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2015, the Clean Water Rule was published by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Clean Water Rule was intended to clarify the boundaries of the waters of the United States, which brought those waters under federal regulatory provisions of the Clean Water Act. Several challenges to the Clean Water Rule were filed in both federal district courts and in federal appeals courts as litigants were unclear as to which courts had jurisdiction. The actions were consolidated before the Sixth Circuit, which held that federal appeals courts had jurisdiction.
  • The issue: What is the proper venue to bring challenges to the Clean Water Rule: federal district courts or federal appeals courts?
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal district courts are the proper venues for challenges to the rule.


    • In brief: Several challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule were brought in federal district courts and federal appeals courts as litigants questioned which courts had jurisdiction. Two specific subsections of 33 U.S.C. §1369(b)(1), subsections (E) and (F), provide that federal appeals courts may review an action of the EPA administrator "(E) in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345 of this title" or "(F) in issuing or denying any permit under section 1342 of this title ..." A divided three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit held that federal appeals courts had jurisdiction in this case under subsection (F), however, one of the panel judges argued that the circuit precedent on which jurisdiction in federal appeals courts was established, National Cotton v. Council v. U.S. E.P.A., was incorrectly decided and another felt the precedent was incorrectly applied. On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's ruling.

    You can review the lower court's opinion here.[1]

    Background

    This was a case about jurisdiction, specifically, what was the proper venue to challenge the validity of a 2015 rule published by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter, EPA), the Clean Water Rule?

    The Clean Water Rule was intended to provide clarity as to the territory and scope of waters constituting the "waters of the United States." Waters of the United States are subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act. Under provisions of the Clean Water Act, specifically 33 U.S.C. §1369(b)(1), certain decisions of the EPA administrator are subject to direct review in federal appeals courts. The question in this case was whether modifying the definition of waters of the United States was the type of decision subject to direct review in federal appeals courts or whether jurisdiction was properly in federal district courts.[1]

    At issue were two specific subsections of 33 U.S.C. §1369(b)(1), subsections (E) and (F). Those subsections provide that federal appeals courts may review an action of the EPA administrator "(E) in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345 of this title" or "(F) in issuing or denying any permit under section 1342 of this title ..."[1]

    In arguments before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit composed of Judges David McKeague, Damon Keith, and Richard Griffin, the National Association of Manufacturers et al. argued that the EPA's and the Army Corps of Engineers' adoption of the Clean Water Rule was subject to review in federal district courts and that the consolidated actions before the Sixth Circuit were outside of the court's authorized jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.[1]

    In an opinion announcing the judgment of the court, Judge David McKeague held that federal appeals courts had proper jurisdiction in this case under both subsection (E) and subsection (F), but his opinion only held a majority of the panel for the question of jurisdiction under subsection (F). Therefore, the panel held that federal appeals courts did not have jurisdiction under subsection (E).[1]

    Regarding subsection (F), Judge McKeague relied on the Sixth Circuit's own precedent, National Cotton Council v. U.S. E.P.A. In National Cotton, the Sixth Circuit "held that subsection (F) authorizes direct circuit court review not only of actions issuing or denying particular permits, but also of regulations governing the issuance of permits." Judge McKeague held that the adoption of the Clean Water Rule "indisputably expands regulatory authority and impacts the granting and denying of permits in fundamental ways." Thus, the panel held that the Sixth Circuit had jurisdiction under subsection (F).[1]

    Judge Richard Griffin issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Though Judge Griffin concurred that National Cotton granted jurisdiction under subsection (F), he argued that National Cotton was wrongly decided. In his view, he would have denied jurisdiction, but because National Cotton was a controlling precedent and that a three-judge panel cannot overturn a decision of a circuit, he concurred in the result. Judge Damon Keith dissented from the panel, holding that the panel's interpretation of National Cotton was not correctly applied.[1]

    Petitioners' challenge

    The National Association of Manufacturers et al., the petitioners, challenged the holding of the Sixth Circuit. The petitioners argued that the Clean Water Rule neither issues nor denies permits under Section 1342 of the Clean Water Act and, as such, direct review of their petition should be conducted in federal district court and not in federal appeals courts as the Sixth Circuit held.

    Certiorari granted

    On September 2, 2016, the National Association of Manufacturers et al., the petitioners, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Sixth Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitioners' certiorari request on January 13, 2017. Argument in the case was held on October 11, 2017.[2]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "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."[2]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[3]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[4]

    Outcome

    Decision

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the unanimous opinion of the court, concluding, "The [Waters of the United States] Rule falls outside the ambit of §1369(b)(1), and any challenges to the Rule therefore must be filed in federal district courts."[5]

    Opinion

    Justice Sotomayor first examined the two categories of claims at issue--subparagraph E and subparagraph F. As to subparagraph E, Sotomayor rejected the idea that the rule was an effluent limitation within the meaning of the statute and ruled instead that the rule was a definition of the waters covered by the statute. As to subparagraph F, Sotomayor wrote:

    “ The Government’s proposed 'functional interpretive approach' is completely unmoored from the statutory text. As explained above, subparagraph (F) applies only to EPA actions 'issuing or denying' a permit 'under section 1342.' The Government invites us to broaden that narrow language to cover any agency action that dictates whether a permit is issued or denied. Congress easily could have drafted subparagraph (F) in that broad manner. Indeed, Congress could have said that subparagraph (F) covers EPA actions 'relating to whether a permit is issued or denied,' or, alternatively, EPA actions 'establishing the boundaries of EPA’s permitting authority.' But Congress chose not to do so. The Court declines the Government’s invitation to override Congress’ considered choice by rewriting the words of the statute.[5][6] ”


    The government had also argued that ruling in favor of district court jurisdiction would create an awkward and inefficient system for adjudication. Sotomayor acknowledged that district court jurisdiction was not the cleanest path available to the drafters of the statute. Nevertheless, she ruled, "Ultimately, the Government’s policy arguments do not obscure what the statutory language makes clear: Subparagraphs (E) and (F) do not grant courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review the WOTUS Rule."[5]

    The opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Murray Energy Corp. et. al. v. U.S. Department of Defense et al., February 22, 2016
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, National Association of Manufacturers v. Dept. of Defense, January 13, 2017
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, argued October 11, 2017
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, argued October 11, 2017
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 United States Supreme Court, "National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense" Opinion, January 22, 2018
    6. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Manufacturers_v._Department_of_Defense&oldid=8891585"