No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT"

Transcription

1 No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (a.k.a. OOIDA ) AND SCOTT MITCHELL, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents, On Appeal from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Medical Examiner s Certification Integration Final rule, published April 23, 2015, 80 Fed. Reg and Denial of OOIDA s Petition for Reconsideration, on September 9, PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC PAUL D. CULLEN, SR. PAUL D. CULLEN, JR. CHARLES R. STINSON The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC th Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC Tel: (202) Fax: (202) February 20, 2018 Counsel for Petitioners Appellate Case: Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 2 ARGUMENT... 5 I. INJURY-IN-FACT FOR STANDING PURPOSES MAY BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO A RULE S EFFECTIVE DATE... 5 II. THE PANEL IGNORED THE VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AS A BASIS FOR STANDING... 7 III. THE PANEL OVERLOOKED OOIDA S ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING... 9 IV. THE PANEL BRUSHED ASIDE PETITIONERS AFFIDAVITS WITHOUT ANALYSIS CONCLUSION ii Appellate Case: Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967)...1, 10 Barham v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 441 F.3d 581 (8th Cir. 2006)... 8 Bearden v. Lemon, 475 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2007)... 8 Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281 (1974)... 4 Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962)... 4 Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)... 5 Clean Air Implementation Project v. E.P.A., 150 F. 3d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1998)... 6 Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977)...9, 10 Iowa League of Cities v. E.P.A., 711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013)... 1, 6, 9, 11 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)... 1, 6, 7, 9, 11 Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)... 8 Minard Run Oil Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 670 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2011)...7, 9 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)... 4 iii Appellate Case: Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

4 Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass n, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 656 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2011)... 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 Pub. Water Supply v. City of Peculiar, 345 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2003)...11 United States v. Head, 340 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2003)... 8 Sabre, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 429 F.3d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2005)... 8 Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 699 F.3d 530 (D.C. Cir. 2012)...7, 9 Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002)...10 Statutes & Public Laws 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) U.S.C U.S.C , 2, 5, 6 49 U.S.C , 5 Pub. L (2013)... 5 Regulations 49 C.F.R , 3 49 C.F.R , 3 Regulatory Proceedings Medical Examiner s Certification Integration, 78 Fed. Reg (May 10, 2013)... 3 iv Appellate Case: Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

5 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Panel held that because Petitioners assertion of injury as a result of a federal agency s new Final Rule was prospective and speculative, they did not demonstrate the causation element of standing necessary to bring their petition for review. Opinion at 4-5. This holding conflicts with decisions of the United States Supreme Court and with decisions of several Circuit courts, including the Eighth Circuit, holding that subjects of the challenged rule have sufficient injury to support standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to that rule. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, (1992); Iowa League of Cities v. E.P.A., 711 F.3d 844, 871 (8th Cir. 2013). The Panel s decision also involves a question of exceptional importance. The Court s holding, that Petitioners pre-enforcement claims of injury were insufficient to demonstrate standing, sets a collision course with the statute giving the court jurisdiction to hear petitions for review of agency rules. Under the Hobbs Act, petitioners are required to file their petition for review challenging a final rule with a Circuit Court within 60 days of the entry of the agency s final order. 28 U.S.C The Panel held that Petitioners could not demonstrate concrete injury fairly traceable to a rule on the basis of an affidavit prepared prior to the effective date of the rule. Op. at 5. The Panel s construct of standing all but grants agencies the discretion to deny potential petitioners the right to seek judicial 1 Appellate Case: Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

6 review of agency final rules by making those rules effective 61 days or more after their entry. See Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass n, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 656 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2011) ( OOIDA I ). The question of whether or not a court can sanction federal agency action allowing it to avoid judicial review under one of the court s jurisdiction statutes is a question of exceptional importance. In the alternative, under Rule of Appellate Procedure 40, Petitioners respectfully suggest that the Panel overlooked or misapprehended this jurisprudence and the statements in Petitioners affidavits. OOIDA members are the subject of the challenged Final Rule, therefore they sufficiently demonstrate the causation of their injury to bring their Petition for Review. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioners challenge the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration s (FMCSA s) amendments to rules that require truck drivers to meet physical qualification standards through a medical certification process. 49 C.F.R (b)(4) & The final rule (with corrections) was published on April 23, It established an effective date of June 23, The Petition for Review was filed within 60 days of the entry of the rule as required by 28 U.S.C The Watkins affidavit, upon which the Petitioners rely for standing, was 2 Appellate Case: Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

7 executed on May 23, 2015, 30 days prior to the effective date of the Rule. Op. at 5. The Panel held that the injuries identified in Petitioners Watkins affidavit and foreseen by their Johnston affidavit were not traceable to the final rule because the rule did not become effective until after the affidavits were executed. Id. Under the final rule, truck drivers are required to submit to a review by a medical examiner who has the statutory authority to certify whether or not an individual meets the physical qualifications to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely. 49 C.F.R & The medical examiner s decision determines whether, by law, a driver should be permitted to operate a commercial motor vehicle or be disqualified from such work. Id. FMCSA initiated the challenged rule by publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on May 10, The primary purpose of the NPRM was to combine into a single document the records of a driver s medical certification and commercial driver s license. Medical Examiner s Certification Integration, 78 Fed. Reg (May 10, 2013). Petitioners generally support the paperwork savings of this rule. Petitioners challenge, however, FMCSA s promulgation of other parts of the Final Rule that amended and broadened the scope of the driver s Health History and the medical criteria that a medical examiner is required to assess before making a medical certification determination. The Panel never 3 Appellate Case: Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

8 addressed the merits of the Petition for Review. Petitioners set forth their basic claims here because they are relevant to the issue of standing. FMCSA violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the Motor Carrier Act because it did not propose, and therefore did not afford the public the opportunity to comment upon, an extensive list of medical criteria, appearing in its Final Rule as Appendix A to 49 C.F.R. Part 391. See 5 U.S.C. 706 & 553(b)(3)(B); 49 U.S.C FMCSA thereby elevated what were once (unenforceable) agency guidelines labeled advisory criteria to the status of a rule independently established in the Code of Federal Regulations. Furthermore, in promulgating both the expanded Health History and Appendix A, FMCSA violated the APA by not performing or providing any analysis to explain how these new parts of the rule were the product of reasoned decision making. The agency must, of course, examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). A reviewing court will consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass n, 463 U.S. at 43; Bowman Transp. Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., Appellate Case: Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

9 U.S. 281, 285 (1974); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). Furthermore, FMCSA did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis required by the Motor Carrier Act for any elements of the expanded Health History or Appendix A. Such a cost-benefit analysis is required during the promulgation of motor carrier safety rules. 49 U.S.C (c)(2)(A). Finally, by incorporating the medical condition of sleep disorders, including obstructive sleep apnea, into both the Health History and in Appendix A, FMCSA violated Pub. L (2013), under which Congress required the agency to perform a rulemaking before incorporating any sleep disorder standard into the medical certification process. Pub. L (Oct. 15, 2014); 127 Stat ARGUMENT I. INJURY-IN-FACT FOR STANDING PURPOSES MAY BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO A RULE S EFFECTIVE DATE The Panel s holding conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and that of this and other Circuits when it held that the Watkins affidavit did not address injury fairly traceable to the rule because it was prepared prior to the rule s effective date. Op. at 5. The Hobbs Act requires Petitioners to file a petition for review within 60 days of an agency s final order. 28 U.S.C Congress intended this statute to provide pre-enforcement judicial review of an agency s order. OOIDA I, 656 F.3d 5 Appellate Case: Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

10 at 587 (citing Clean Air Implementation Project v. E.P.A., 150 F. 3d 1200, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 1998)). If the Court s holding based on the prospective nature of the rule s impact on Petitioners were correct, then, as the Seventh Circuit noted, any final rule could be insulated from a pre-enforcement challenge by the simple expedient of setting an effective date 61 or more days after the rule was entered; ripeness would always stand as a bar to a petition. Id. The function of the Hobbs Act in providing Petitioners with pre-enforcement judicial review informs the nature of the evidence sufficient to support Petitioners standing. The Hobbs Act provides that [a]ny party aggrieved by the final order may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to review the order in the court of appeals wherein venue lies. 28 U.S.C The party aggrieved relates to constitutional standing under Article III, requiring a petitioner to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, which has been caused by the agency, and which a court can redress. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, (1992). When a petitioner is the subject of agency action there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury. Id. at (cited with approval by Iowa League of Cities v. E.P.A., 711 F.3d 844, 871 (8th Cir. 2013)). The Panel s decision conflicts with this standard for finding causation of injury, and therefore standing. The decision would work to frustrate Congress's 6 Appellate Case: Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

11 determination that pre-enforcement review should be the norm for agency rules that fall under statutes like the Hobbs Act. OOIDA I, 656 F.3d at 587. The Panel s decision splits with the Supreme Court s holding on standing in Lujan, and the Seventh Circuit s holdings cited above and presents an issue of exceptional importance. II. THE PANEL IGNORED THE VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AS A BASIS FOR STANDING Violation of procedural rights of interested parties during a rulemaking proceeding confers standing. Lujan 504 U.S. at 572 n.7. Procedural violations can include violation of the APA's notice-and-comment requirements, as those procedures are plainly designed to protect the sort of interest alleged. As to such requirements, [the petitioner association] enjoys some slack in showing a causal relation between its members' injury and the legal violation claimed. Sierra Club v. E.P.A., 699 F.3d 530, 533 (D.C. Cir. 2012); see also Minard Run Oil Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 670 F.3d 236, 247 n.4 (3d Cir. 2011) (agency action establish[ing] in violation of appellees' notice and comment rights a new substantive rule... suffices for standing purposes ). Here the Petitioners procedural interest includes FMCSA conducting a transparent and accountable rulemaking procedure, including the performance of a cost-benefit analysis of the imposition of various detailed medical criteria, and the agency s consideration and response to Petitioners comments. 7 Appellate Case: Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

12 If a petitioner is vested with a procedural right, that litigant has standing if there is some possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury-causing party to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 518, (2007). When a petition involves purely legal claims in the context of a facial challenge to a final rule, a petition is presumptively reviewable. OOIDA I, 656 F.3d at 586 (citing Sabre, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 429 F.3d 1113, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). In this action Petitioners are focused solely on the FMCSA s failure to comply with its statutory obligations when promulgating a rule. There is no need for the Court to conduct an individualized inquiry of the rules to decide the lawfulness of the agency s rulemaking on the merits. The Panel refused to reach the merits of Petitioners procedural standing argument, noting that it does not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. Op. at 5 n.4 (citing Bearden v. Lemon, 475 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir. 2007)). This narrow view overstates this Circuit s reluctance to consider such arguments. The Eighth Circuit is not precluded from doing so, particularly where, as here, the argument raised in the reply brief supplements an argument raised in a party's initial brief. Barham v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 441 F.3d 581, 584 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Head, 340 F.3d 628, 630 n.4 (8th Cir. 2003)). In this case, OOIDA s procedural standing argument in its reply brief clearly supplements the standing arguments raised in the Petitioners initial brief 8 Appellate Case: Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

13 and flows directly from Petitioners issues and merits arguments. Each of Petitioners issues, that FMCSA failed to follow statutory requirements when conducting a rulemaking, is solely procedural. Iowa League of Cities, 711 F.3d at 871 (finding that the APA rulemaking procedures were designed to protect some threatened concrete interest of [the petitioner] that is the ultimate basis of his standing (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573); see also Sierra Club, 699 F.3d at 533; Minard Run Oil Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 670 F.3d 236, 247 n.4 (3d Cir. 2011). III. THE PANEL OVERLOOKED OOIDA S ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING Because the Panel found that Petitioners did not demonstrate the actual implementation of the final rule as to individuals, the Court also dismissed OOIDA s claim to association standing. Op. at 3-4, n.2. However, an association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Mr. Johnston s and Mr. Watkins s affidavits indisputably establish that OOIDA s individual members are the subject of the Final Rule at issue and, therefore, would have individual standing to sue in their own right. Mr. Johnston s affidavit describes how the rules for the medical certification of truck drivers are germane to the purpose of OOIDA as an advocate for the rights of truck drivers. 9 Appellate Case: Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

14 And by the nature of Petitioner s claims, focused on whether FMCSA complied with its statutory rulemaking obligations, there is no need for the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Petitioners opening brief, therefore, demonstrated grounds for associational standing under Article III. Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343 (1977); Sierra Club, 292 F.3d at 898; OOIDA I, 656 F.3d at 586. IV. THE PANEL BRUSHED ASIDE PETITIONERS AFFIDAVITS WITHOUT ANALYSIS The Panel found Petitioners affidavits insufficient to establish the causation element of their standing. The Panel characterized Mr. Johnston s affidavit as generalized allegations of the types of harm that could stem from the Rule a far cry from the specific facts, id., we look for to support standing. Op. at 4. The Panel noted that Mr. Watkins s statement addressed events that occurred before the effective dates of the new rule, and therefore Petitioners had not adequately established that the new rule caused their members concrete injury sufficient to support standing. Op. at 5. The Panel s focus on Petitioners affidavits as speculation as to the future effects of the Final Rule and, therefore, as insufficient to establish standing contradict the well-established rule of Abbott Laboratories permitting preenforcement challenges of final agency rules. Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 149; see also Iowa League of Cities, 711 F.3d at 867 ( We do not require parties to operate beneath the sword of Damocles until the threatened harm actually befalls them, but 10 Appellate Case: Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

15 the injury must be certainly impending (citing Pub. Water Supply v. City of Peculiar, 345 F.3d 570, 573)); OOIDA I, 656 F.3d at 586 (Petitioners had standing to challenge FMCSA safety regulation in advance of its implementation date). Mr. Johnston s and Mr. Watkins s affidavits established that Petitioner OOIDA s members are the subjects of the Final Rule amending the Medical Certification rules. This is all the evidence Petitioners must demonstrate to show sufficient concrete and particularized injury to establish standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at ; Iowa League of Cities, 711 F.3d at 871; see also OOIDA I, 656 F.3d at 585 (where petitioner truck drivers were the regulated subject of the (notyet-implemented) electronic logging device rules, standing was easily met ) On this jurisprudence alone, Mr. Johnston s and Mr. Watkins s affidavits, establishing that OOIDA members are the subject of the new medical certification rules, were sufficient to demonstrate Petitioners standing to challenge those rules. Petitioners affidavits, however, go further than simply demonstrating that OOIDA members are the object of a pending Final Rule. Because Petitioners challenge FMCSA s decision to transform its prior (unenforceable) certification guidelines into standalone rules in 49 C.F.R. Part 391, Appendix A, the effect of the application of those medical criteria on drivers is not merely prospective or speculative. As guidance, the medical criteria have been used by medical examiners to evaluate truck drivers for years. Mr. Watkins s affidavit details the 11 Appellate Case: Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

16 impact, cost, and harm they have imposed on OOIDA s members in the preceding months and years. Therefore, even though the courts have routinely found petitioners to have standing when they are to be the object of a final rule before it has been enforced, Dale Watkins s affidavit went further. Mr. Watkins specifically and concretely demonstrated the harm those medical criteria imposed on professional truck drivers when they existed as regulatory guidelines with no legal status. FMCSA s guidance documents created a non-uniform, unpredictable and sometimes costly medical certification process. OOIDA members received or were denied medical certification depending on which medical examiner they went to and that examiner s interpretation of the guidance. Now that FMCSA has elevated those same advisory criteria to a legally enforceable rule, the harm they impose on truck drivers is not speculative, it is certain. 12 Appellate Case: Page: 16 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

17 CONCLUSION If under Fed. R. App. 40, if the Panel overlooks or misapprehended Petitioners arguments and affidavits, the Petition for Panel Rehearing should be granted. Alternatively, rehearing en banc should be ordered to eliminate a conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedent and to resolve an issue of exceptional importance; to preserve Petitioners right to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to preserve FMCSA rules. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: February 20, 2018 /s/ Paul D. Cullen, Jr. Paul D. Cullen, Jr. The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC th Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC Tel: (202) Fax: (202) Counsel for Petitioners 13 Appellate Case: Page: 17 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

18 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 32, 35 & 40 This Petition complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 35 & 40 because this Petition contains 2,836 words, excluding the parts exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f). This Petition complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this Petition has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in Times New Roman font, size 14. Appellate Case: Page: 18 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 20, 2017 I caused to be filed with the Court and served on Respondents through the CM/ECF system the foregoing Petitioners Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc. /s/ Paul D. Cullen, Jr.. Paul D. Cullen, Jr. Appellate Case: Page: 19 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Entry ID:

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-1085 Document #1725473 Filed: 04/05/2018 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1219 Document #1693477 Filed: 09/18/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) UTILITY SOLID

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1492 Document #1696614 Filed: 10/03/2017 Page 1 of 9 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) SIERRA CLUB,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668936 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, ET

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1679553 Filed: 06/14/2017 Page 1 of 14 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, EARTHWORKS, ENVIRONMENTAL

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #17-1038 Document #1666639 Filed: 03/17/2017 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) CONSUMERS FOR AUTO RELIABILITY

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1385 Document #1670218 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Murray Energy Corporation,

More information

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Nos. 05-16975, 05-17078 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross- Appellants, v. NANCY RUTHENBECK, District Ranger, Hot Springs

More information

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1381 Document #1675253 Filed: 05/15/2017 Page 1 of 14 ORAL ARGUMENT REMOVED FROM CALENDAR No. 15-1381 (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1381 Document #1668276 Filed: 03/28/2017 Page 1 of 12 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) STATE OF NORTH

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1166 Document #1671681 Filed: 04/18/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 8, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT WALTER COKE, INC.,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO USCA Case #17-1092 Document #1671332 Filed: 04/17/2017 Page 1 of 7 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668929 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2010] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2010] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Case: 09-1094 Document: 1212728 Filed: 10/26/2009 Page: 1 [ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2010] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PUBLIC CITIZEN, ET AL.,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Case: 18-1514 Document: 00117374681 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2018 Entry ID: 6217949 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. DEPARTMENT

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-290 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, v. HAWKES CO., INC., et al., Ë Petitioner, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al., USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1683079 Filed: 07/07/2017 Page 1 of 15 NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT No. 17-1145 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR

More information

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 16-8068 Document: 01019780139 Date Filed: 03/15/2017 Page: 1 Nos. 16-8068, 16-8069 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WYOMING; STATE OF COLORADO; INDEPENDENT

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1670187 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 10-2 Filed 11/25/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:08-cv EGS Document 10-2 Filed 11/25/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:08-cv-01689-EGS Document 10-2 Filed 11/25/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CALIFORNIA CATTLEMEN S ASSOCIATION, et al., v. Plaintiffs, DIRK KEMPTHORNE,

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case: 13-1377 Case: CASE 13-1377 PARTICIPANTS Document: ONLY 45 Document: Page: 1 43 Filed: Page: 01/17/2014 1 Filed: 01/17/2014 No. 2013-1377 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

More information

No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit No. 17-15589 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit STATE OF HAWAII, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants-Appellants. On Appeal from the United States

More information

Case: , 04/30/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 04/30/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 17-70162, 04/30/2018, ID: 10854860, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 10) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 30 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 07-56424 08/24/2009 Page: 1 of 6 DktEntry: 7038488 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO USCA Case #15-1379 Document #1671083 Filed: 04/14/2017 Page 1 of 8 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC., Case: 10-15222 11/14/2011 ID: 7963092 DktEntry: 45-2 Page: 1 of 17 No. 10-15222 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, ADVANCED

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600435 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 2016 No. 15-1363 (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

More information

RULEMAKING th Annual Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Institute. May 18, 2017

RULEMAKING th Annual Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Institute. May 18, 2017 RULEMAKING 101 13th Annual Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Institute May 18, 2017 Part 2: Judicial Review of Agency Rulemaking H. Thomas Byron, III Assistant Director Civil Division, Appellate

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases

ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1669991 Filed: 04/06/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 No. 15-1363 and Consolidated Cases IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF

More information

Case 4:17-cv JSW Document 39 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:17-cv JSW Document 39 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 PINEROS Y CAMPESINOS UNIDOS DEL NOROESTE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, E. SCOTT PRUITT, et al., Defendants.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 07-56424 06/08/2009 Page: 1 of 7 DktEntry: 6949062 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1671066 Filed: 04/13/2017 Page 1 of 8 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. : Civil Action No. GLR MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. : Civil Action No. GLR MEMORANDUM OPINION Case 1:17-cv-01253-GLR Document 46 Filed 03/22/19 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BLUE WATER BALTIMORE, INC., et al., : Plaintiffs, : v. : Civil Action No.

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) USCA Case #15-1385 Document #1670271 Filed: 04/10/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MURRAY ENERGY CORP.,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1056 Document #1726769 Filed: 04/16/2018 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association,

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-290 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PETITIONER v. HAWKES CO., INC., ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #13-1108 Document #1670157 Filed: 04/07/2017 Page 1 of 7 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-1190 Document #1744873 Filed: 08/09/2018 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, ) et al., ) ) Petitioners, )

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #12-1272 Document #1384888 Filed: 07/20/2012 Page 1 of 9 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT White Stallion Energy Center,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Case: 10-1215 Document: 1265178 Filed: 09/10/2010 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, et al., ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) No. 10-1131

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 13-9590 Document: 01019139697 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ACCIPITER COMMUNICATIONS INC., Petitioner v. No. 13-9590 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Case: 08-1200 Document: 1274843 Filed: 11/01/2010 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, et al., Petitioners, No. 08-1200 and consolidated

More information

Case: , 07/31/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 60-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 07/31/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 60-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 16-56602, 07/31/2018, ID: 10960794, DktEntry: 60-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUL 31 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, USCA4 Appeal: 18-2095 Doc: 50 Filed: 01/16/2019 Pg: 1 of 8 No. 18-2095 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE, v. Petitioners, UNITED

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #12-1342 Document #1426559 Filed: 03/21/2013 Page 1 of 5 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP, et al.,

More information

Case: Document: Filed: 08/26/2010 Page: 1 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED

Case: Document: Filed: 08/26/2010 Page: 1 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED Case: 09-1237 Document: 1262751 Filed: 08/26/2010 Page: 1 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 09-1237 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE

More information

Andrew Emery Principal The Regulatory Group, Inc. Arlington, VA. Jane Luxton Partner Pepper Hamilton Washington, DC

Andrew Emery Principal The Regulatory Group, Inc. Arlington, VA. Jane Luxton Partner Pepper Hamilton Washington, DC Andrew Emery Principal The Regulatory Group, Inc. Arlington, VA Jane Luxton Partner Pepper Hamilton Washington, DC Aditi Prabhu Attorney-Adviser Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 1 The agency

More information

Case 1:08-cv WS-C Document 28 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

Case 1:08-cv WS-C Document 28 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Case 1:08-cv-00182-WS-C Document 28 Filed 06/06/2008 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA STATE OF ALABAMA * * Plaintiff, * * CASE NO: C.A. 08-0182-WS-C

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-1044 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROBERT DONNELL DONALDSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT THE LOAN SYNDICATIONS AND TRADING ASSOCIATION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 17-5004 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; BOARD

More information

NO IN THE. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit PETITIONERS REPLY

NO IN THE. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit PETITIONERS REPLY NO. 11-221 IN THE DON DIFIORE, LEON BAILEY, RITSON DESROSIERS, MARCELINO COLETA, TONY PASUY, LAWRENCE ALLSOP, CLARENCE JEFFREYS, FLOYD WOODS, and ANDREA CONNOLLY, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

More information

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Petitioner-Appellant, v. No H. A. LEDEZMA, Warden,

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Petitioner-Appellant, v. No H. A. LEDEZMA, Warden, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit March 30, 2011 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORTINO LICON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 10-6166

More information

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #11-1265 Document #1328728 Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS, et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) No. 11-1265

More information

Docket No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Docket No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Docket No. 07-35821 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INTERSCOPE RECORDS, a California general partnership; CAPITAL RECORDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-1051 Document #1768455 Filed: 01/15/2019 Page 1 of 5 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Mozilla Corporation,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1686475 Filed: 07/31/2017 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, EARTHWORKS, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND,

More information

Nos (L), IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Nos (L), IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Case 17-2780, Document 115, 12/01/2017, 2185246, Page1 of 23 Nos. 17-2780 (L), 17-2806 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Petitioners,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1308 Document #1573669 Filed: 09/17/2015 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC. and WALTER COKE, INC.,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 17-51063 Document: 00514380489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** *** Case: 5:17-cv-00351-DCR Doc #: 19 Filed: 03/15/18 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 440 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington THOMAS NORTON, et al., V. Plaintiffs,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 14-55900, 04/11/2017, ID: 10392099, DktEntry: 59, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Appellee, v. No. 14-55900 GREAT PLAINS

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION OF TELMATE, LLC FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT MOTION OF TELMATE, LLC FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION USCA Case #15-1461 Document #1604585 Filed: 03/17/2016 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT GLOBAL TEL*LINK, et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. SUSAN WATERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees.

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. SUSAN WATERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees. No. 15-1452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT SUSAN WATERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees. v. PETE RICKETTS, in his official capacity as Governor of Nebraska, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (L) (5:15-cv D)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (L) (5:15-cv D) Appeal: 16-1270 Doc: 53 Filed: 07/14/2016 Pg: 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1270 (L) (5:15-cv-00156-D) RALEIGH WAKE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION; JANNET B. BARNES;

More information

Case Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ILLUMINA, INC.,

Case Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ILLUMINA, INC., Case Nos. 2016-2388, 2017-1020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., v. ILLUMINA, INC., ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Appellant, Appellee,

More information

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Case: 11-50814 Document: 00511723798 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2012 No. 11-50814 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit TEXAS MEDICAL PROVIDERS PERFORMING ABORTION SERVICES, doing

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE Case: 17-72260, 10/02/2017, ID: 10601894, DktEntry: 19, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAFER CHEMICALS HEALTHY FAMILIES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 14-493 In the Supreme Court of the United States KENT RECYCLING SERVICES, LLC, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1669771 Filed: 04/05/2017 Page 1 of 8 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, et al.,

More information

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 28 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 28 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9 Case :-cv-0-jcc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE and SIERRA CLUB v. Plaintiffs, SCOTT PRUITT, in

More information

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 61 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 2:15-cv JCC Document 61 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Case :-cv-0-jcc Document Filed // Page of THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, ANDREW

More information

No IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division,

No IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division, No. 10-1070 ~[~ 2 7 7.i~[ IN THE EISAI CO. LTD AND EISAI MEDICAL RESEARCH, INC., Petitioners, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., through its GATE PHARMACEUTICALS Division, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ) ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM ) NOW et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 08-CV-4084-NKL

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APPELLEES RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION FOR INITIAL HEARING EN BANC

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APPELLEES RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION FOR INITIAL HEARING EN BANC Appellate Case: 14-3246 Document: 01019343568 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 1 Kail Marie, et al., UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Case No. 14-3246 Robert Moser,

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 14-72794, 04/28/2017, ID: 10415009, DktEntry: 58, Page 1 of 20 No. 14-72794 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA, and NATURAL RESOURCES

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ) DAMIAN ANDREW SYBLIS, ) ) Petitioner ) No. 11-4478 ) v. ) ) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED ) STATES, ) ) Respondent. ) ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 11-1460 Michael R. Nack, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Douglas Paul

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, No. 16-60104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, v. Plaintiff- Appellant, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Respondent. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD DISTRICT BRIEF

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION MISSOURI COALITION FOR THE ) ENVIRONMENT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case Number: 03-4217-CV-C-NKL ) MICHAEL O. LEAVITT, Administrator

More information

Rethinking Article III Standing in IPR Appeals at the Federal Circuit

Rethinking Article III Standing in IPR Appeals at the Federal Circuit Rethinking Article III Standing in IPR Appeals at the Federal Circuit Charles R. Macedo and Chandler Sturm, Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP James Howard, Askeladden L.L.C. Introduction In 2011, as part

More information

Case No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case: 13-4330 Document: 003111516193 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/24/2014 Case No. 13-4330, 13-4394 & 13-4501 (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-1305 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States BEAVEX INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. THOMAS COSTELLO, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

More information

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 226 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 226 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 7 Case 2:16-cv-00285-SWS Document 226 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 7 Eric P. Waeckerlin Pro Hac Vice Samuel Yemington Wyo. Bar No. 75150 Holland & Hart LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Tel: 303.892.8000 Fax:

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No MICHAEL V. PELLICANO, Appellant

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No MICHAEL V. PELLICANO, Appellant UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14-2836 MICHAEL V. PELLICANO, Appellant v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, INSURANCE OPERATIONS On Appeal from the United States

More information

RECENT CASES. (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7661a 7661f). 1 See Eric Biber, Two Sides of the Same Coin: Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Action

RECENT CASES. (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7661a 7661f). 1 See Eric Biber, Two Sides of the Same Coin: Judicial Review of Administrative Agency Action 982 RECENT CASES FEDERAL STATUTES CLEAN AIR ACT D.C. CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT EPA CANNOT PREVENT STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES FROM SUPPLEMENTING INADEQUATE EMISSIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF

More information

Case 1:11-cv PLF Document 54 Filed 01/09/12 Page 1 of 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-cv PLF Document 54 Filed 01/09/12 Page 1 of 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:11-cv-01278-PLF Document 54 Filed 01/09/12 Page 1 of 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) SIERRA CLUB, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-1278 (PLF) ) LISA P.

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-463 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë PRISCILLA SUMMERS, et al., v. Petitioners, EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE, et al., Ë Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States Nos. 06-340, 06-549 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS, et al., Petitioners, v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, et al., Respondents. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

More information

Case 4:17-cv O Document 115 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID 2935

Case 4:17-cv O Document 115 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID 2935 Case 4:17-cv-00868-O Document 115 Filed 05/25/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID 2935 CHAD EVERET BRACKEEN, et al. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AT&T INC. S OPPOSITION TO FCC S MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AT&T INC. S OPPOSITION TO FCC S MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE USCA Case #15-1038 Document #1562701 Filed: 07/15/2015 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AT&T INC., v. Petitioner, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 16-1284 Document: 173 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2017 2016-1284, -1787 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A., v. Plaintiff-Appellee, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States v. Kevin Brewer Doc. 802508136 United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-1261 United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Kevin Lamont Brewer

More information

Justiciability: Barriers to Administrative and Judicial Review. Kirsten Nathanson Crowell & Moring LLP September 14, 2016

Justiciability: Barriers to Administrative and Judicial Review. Kirsten Nathanson Crowell & Moring LLP September 14, 2016 Justiciability: Barriers to Administrative and Judicial Review Kirsten Nathanson Crowell & Moring LLP September 14, 2016 Overview Standing Mootness Ripeness 2 Standing Does the party bringing suit have

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-3112 Ria Schumacher, Individually and on Behalf of All Others lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellee v. SC Data Center, Inc., doing business

More information

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No C (Filed under seal September 7, 2011) (Reissued September 21, 2011) 1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No C (Filed under seal September 7, 2011) (Reissued September 21, 2011) 1 In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 11-455C (Filed under seal September 7, 2011) (Reissued September 21, 2011) 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * EAST WEST, INC., * Pre-award

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 14-340 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- FRIENDS OF AMADOR

More information

SIERRA CLUB, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

SIERRA CLUB, et al., Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION INC., AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL ~ REFINERS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, Vo SIERRA CLUB, et al., Respondents. On

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals Case: 12-1624 Document: 003111070495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case No. 12-1624 ASSOCIATION NEW JERSEY RIFLE AND PISTOL CLUBS, a New Jersey Not

More information