The Supreme Court ruled today that an Idaho couple can bring a civil action against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to challenge a compliance order, instead of waiting for the EPA to initiate a court action. Federal courts had previously rejected the couple's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
While the Nine heard oral arguments about the Stolen Valor Act in U.S. v. Alvarez on Wednesday, the Court was also releasing opinions.
The Supreme Court issued three more opinions this morning, raising the decision tally for their first post-recess week to seven. It was a day of reversals, with the Court sending the following cases back to the Montana Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Article III courts may only hear cases or controversies. As of today, Magner v. Gallagher, a case from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that was set for oral arguments this month before the Supreme Court, no longer meets those criteria.
The City of St. Paul, Minn. withdrew its petition to the Supreme Court today, so the case will instead proceed to trial in a Minnesota federal court, reports SCOTUSblog. The Supreme Court had scheduled arguments in the case for February 29.
Grant of Certiorari Vacated
In Madison Cty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., No. 10-72, an action concerning an Indian tribe's collection of property taxes, the Supreme Court vacated a grant of certiorari and remanded to the Second Circuit where that court needed to address, in the first instance, whether to revisit its ruling on sovereign immunity in light of new factual developments, and -- if necessary -- proceed to address other questions in the case consistent with its sovereign immunity ruling.
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dept. of Env. Protection, Inc., No. 08-1151, involved an action challenging the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's approval of permits to restore a portion of beach eroded by several hurricanes. The Court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court's holding that the approval of the permits did not unconstitutionally deprive plaintiffs of littoral rights without just compensation, on the ground that there could be no taking unless petitioner could show that, before the Florida Supreme Court's decision, littoral property owners had rights to future accretions and to contact with the water superior to the State's right to fill in its submerged land.
As the Court wrote: "We consider a claim that the decision of a State's court of last resort took property without just compensation inviolation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied against the States through the Fourteenth, see Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374, 383-384 (1994)."
Related Resources
Salazar v. Buono, No. 08-472, concerned an action involving an underlying Establishment Clause challenge to a Latin cross placed on federal land by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) to honor American soldiers who died in World War I. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's order precluding the government from transferring the cross and the land on which it stood to the VFW in order to comply with a prior injunction, holding that 1) plaintiff had standing to maintain the instant action because a party that obtains a judgment in its favor acquires a "judicially cognizable" interest in ensuring compliance with that judgment; but 2) the district court erred in enjoining the government from implementing the land-transfer statute on the premise that the relief was necessary to protect plaintiff's rights under the 2002 injunction.
As the Court wrote: "The Court is asked to consider a challenge, not to the first placement of the cross or its continued presence on federal land, but to a statute that would transfer the cross and the land on which it stands to a private party. . . . The District Court permanently enjoined the Government from implementing the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We conclude that its judgment was in error."
Related Resources
