Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Decided
Docket Number
Term
Cert. Denied
Lower Court Opinion
Questions Presented
Whether the Third Circuit erred by deferring to EPA’s interpretation of the words “total maximum daily load” to permit EPA to impose a complex regulatory scheme that does much more than cap daily levels of total pollutant loading and that displaces powers reserved to the States.
Case Updates
Cert. petition denied
February 29, 2016
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief supporting certiorari
December 09, 2015
In its brief, the U.S. Chamber urged the Supreme Court to review a Third Circuit decision affirming EPA’s “total maximum daily load” (“TMDL”) regulation for the Chesapeake Bay. Unlike previous TMDLs established by states, which fix a daily cap on the specific water body, this TMDL establishes pollutant limits for point and nonpoint sources across the 64,000 square mile Bay watershed, sets deadlines for states to implement control measures for those sources, and demands “reasonable assurances” from states that the deadlines will be met, backed by federal sanctions.
The brief, filed jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers and National Federation of Independent Business, argues that the TMDL will adversely affect National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits and facility operations, and that the TMDL’s offset requirements further paralyze economic growth.
Catherine E. Stetson and James T. Banks of Hogan Lovells served as co-counsel for the amici with the U.S. Chamber.
Case Documents
- Opinion -- American Farm Bureau v. EPA (Third Circuit).pdf
- Cert. Petition -- American Farm Bureau v. EPA (SCOTUS).pdf
- U.S. Chamber Amicus Brief -- American Farm Bureau v. EPA (SCOTUS).pdf
- Brief in Opposition -- American Farm Bureau v. EPA (SCOTUS).pdf
- Brief in Opposition for Intervenor Respondent -- American Farm Bureau v. EPA (SCOTUS).pdf
- Reply Brief for Petitioners -- American Farm Bureau v. EPA (SCOTUS).pdf