Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.
| Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by Thomas, Alito |
| Concurrence | Kagan |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which 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.
Background
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into "waters of the United States" without a valid permit.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
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
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court
References
- ^ Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., No. 15-290, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1, 5 (2016).
- ^ 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(7), 1362(12).
- ^ "Code of Federal Regulations | Title 40".
- ^ Hawkes, slip op. at 2-3 (citing 33 CFR § 331.2).
- ^ Hawkes, slip op. at 3-4.
- D. Minn.2013).
- 8th Cir.2015).
- ^ Hawkes, slip op. at 4-5.
- ^ Hawkes, slip op. at 5-10.
- ^ Hawkes, slip op. at 2 (Kennedy, J., concurring).
- ^ Hawkes, slip op. at 1 (Kagan, J., concurring) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
- ^ 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).
External links
- Text of Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. ___ (2016) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)