Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.

Last updated
Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 30, 2016
Decided May 31, 2016
Full case nameUnited States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., et al.
Docket no. 15–290
Citations578 U.S. ___ ( more )
136 S. Ct. 1807; 195 L. Ed. 2d 77
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, 963 F. Supp. 2d 868 (D. Minn. 2013); reversed, 782 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 615 (2015).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceKennedy, joined by Thomas, Alito
ConcurrenceKagan
ConcurrenceGinsburg (in part)
Laws applied
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.   § 704

Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Clean Water Act jurisdictional determination issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because jurisdictional determinations constitute "final agency action". [1] For a federal agency decision or action to be reviewable in court under the Administrative Procedures Act, it must be a “final” agency action, meaning that there are no further steps that can be taken before it has an impact on the legal rights or obligations of any affected parties.

Contents

Background

The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into "waters of the United States" without a valid permit. [2] “Waters of the United States” is a legal term defined in 40 CFR 230.3(s) that means a water body or wetland that is under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers because of its impact on interstate commerce. [3] Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether property contains waters of the United States, the United States Army Corps of Engineers issues jurisdictional determinations (on a case-by-case basis) that specify whether property contains waters of the United States. [4] In this case, the United States Army Corps of Engineers issued a jurisdictional determination, which stated that property owned by peat mine operators in Marshall County, Minnesota included waters of the United States because it contained wetlands that "had a 'significant nexus' to the Red River of the North". [5] The mine operators filed suit to challenge the Corps's jurisdictional determination under the Administrative Procedure Act, but the district court ruled that it could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction because the jurisdictional determination did not constitute "final agency action". [6] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling, [7] and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the case. [8]

Opinion of the Court

In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court rejected The Corps’ contentions that the jurisdictional determination “is not ”final agency action” and that, even if it were, there are adequate alternatives for challenging it in court." [9] Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, where he argued that "the Court is right to construe a [jurisdictional determination] as binding in light of the fact that in many instances it will have a significant bearing on whether the Clean Water Act comports with due process." [10] Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which she argued that jurisdictional determinations are reviewable because "legal consequences will flow" from the Corps' determinations. [11] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment in which she argued that there was nothing tentative or informal about jurisdictional determinations, and that the Corps' determinations have "an immediate and practical impact." [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006, and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that it was possible for government-induced, temporary flooding to constitute a "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such that compensation could be owed to the owner of the flooded property.

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U.S. 302 (2014), was a US Supreme Court case regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a criminal case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States, which considered whether Puerto Rico and the federal government of the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 8–0, that the jurisdictional test established by §27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is the same as 28 U.S.C. § 1331's test for deciding if a case "arises under" a federal law.

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."

Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.

Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the application of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause to cases in which a jury returns irreconcilable verdicts that convict a defendant on one count and acquit a defendant on another count when both counts rely upon the same ultimate fact.

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regards to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.

Washington State Dep't of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855 preempts the state law which the State purported to be able to tax fuel purchased by a tribal corporation for sale to tribal members. This was a 5-4 plurality decision, with Justice Breyer's opinion being joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Ginsburg, penned a concurring opinion. There were dissenting opinions by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh.

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which precludes federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land. Although six Justices agreed that the Gun Lake Act was constitutional, they could not agree on why. In an opinion issued by Justice Thomas, a plurality of the Court read the statute to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving the property and held that this did not violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch, dissented on the ground that the statute intruded on the judicial power, in violation of Article III.

References

  1. ↑ Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.,No. 15-290 , 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1, 5 (2016).
  2. ↑ 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(7), 1362(12).
  3. ↑ "Code of Federal Regulations | Title 40".
  4. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 2-3 (citing 33 CFR § 331.2).
  5. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 3-4.
  6. ↑ Hawkes Co. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 963F. Supp. 2d868 ( D. Minn. 2013).
  7. ↑ Hawkes Co. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 782F.3d994 ( 8th Cir. 2015).
  8. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 4-5.
  9. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 5-10.
  10. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 2 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
  11. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 1 (Kagan, J., concurring) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
  12. ↑ Hawkes, slip op. at 1 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (citing Frozen Food Express v. United States, 351 U.S. 40, 44 (1956)) (internal quotations omitted).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.