This week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Def., No. 16-299 that district courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to any rule that attempts to define "Waters of the United States" for purposes of determining the scope of coverage of the Clean Water Act. As detailed on this blog previously, ever since the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Rapanos, there has been tremendous uncertainty as to which streams and wetlands fall under federal jurisdiction.
The Obama Administration attempted to end the uncertainty by through the Clean Water Rule which broadly defined the federal jurisdiction. Even before the rule went into effect, multiple legal challenges were filed seeking to block the rule.
Before a decision could be reached on the merits of the rule, the proper venue for challenges to the rule had to be decided. The Sixth Circuit ruled the proper venue was in the circuit court of appeals, not district courts. However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling sending the challenge back to district courts.
The ruling also removes the Sixth Circuit’s injunction against administering the Clean Water Rule. With the injunction removed, the Clean Water Rule becomes effective in all but 13 states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming). These states are subject to a separate preliminary injunction which was issued by the federal district court in North Dakota.
The Trump Administration also issued a rule to unwind the Clean Water Rule which will also likely be challenged, now in district courts. The Administration has promised a second rule defining the scope of jurisdiction more narrowly than the Clean Water Rule.
What the Supreme Court decision means is the district courts will likely be awash in legal challenges to both the Obama Administrations Clean Water Rule as well as the Trump Administration’s rules. It will take years for all this litigation to percolate back up to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the merits. In the meantime, industry and land owners will be forced to navigate uncertainty.