Chamber of Commerce, et al v. EPA, et al
Court Docket Sheet

10th Circuit Court of Appeals

2016-05038 (ca10)

[10492715] Order filed by Lucero, Phillips and Moritz continuing abatement. The parties shall file written notice within 5 days after the United States Supreme Court enters a decision in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, No. 16-299. Served on 08/23/2017. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 08/23/2017 03:56 PM]

Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019860137 Date Filed: 08/23/2017 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 23, 2017 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 16-5038 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.------------------------------PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, et al., Amici Curiae. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. MIKE HUNTER, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Oklahoma, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 16-5039 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.------------------------------PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, et al., Amici Curiae. Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019860137 Date Filed: 08/23/2017 Page: 2 _________________________________ ORDER _________________________________ Before LUCERO, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ These matters are before the court on the July 11, 2017 Joint Status Report. Upon consideration, these appeals remain abated. The parties shall file written notice within 5 days after the United States Supreme Court enters a decision in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, No. 16-299. Entered for the Court ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk by: Lindy Lucero Schaible Counsel to the Clerk 2

[10531205] Notice filed by Jo-Ellen Darcy, EPA, E. Scott Pruitt and United States Army Corps of Engineers in 16-5038, 16-5039. Served on 01/25/2018 by email. [16-5038, 16-5039] JDG [Entered: 01/25/2018 12:49 PM]

Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,) Plaintiffs-Appellants,) No. 16-5038) v.)) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.,) Defendants-Appellees.) ___________________________________________________)) STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. HUNTER) Plaintiff-Appellants,)) No. 16-5039 v.)) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.,) Defendants-Appellees.) JOINT NOTICE Pursuant to the Court's order of August 23, 2017, the parties hereby notify the Court that the Supreme Court has issued a decision in Nat'l Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Dep't of Def., 2018 WL 491526 (Jan. 22, 2018) (slip op. attached). The Supreme Court held that the Clean Water Rule falls outside the judicial review provision in 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1). The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's contrary conclusion and remanded with instructions to dismiss the Sixth Circuit petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction. 1 Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 2 Unless a rehearing petition is filed, the Supreme Court will send a copy of the opinion and a certified copy of the judgment to the Sixth Circuit 25 days after entry of judgment. S. Ct. R. 44, 45.2, 45.3. Accordingly, the parties recommend that this Court not take any further action until the time for rehearing has expired and the Supreme Court sends its judgment to the Sixth Circuit in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 45. The parties' last status report advised this Court of a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled: "Definition of 'Waters of the United States' – Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules," 92 Fed. Reg. 34,899 (July 27, 2017). In addition, in November 2017, the defendant agencies issued a second notice of proposed rulemaking, "Definition of 'Waters of the United States'—Addition of an Applicability Date to 2015 Clean Water Rule," 82 Fed. Reg. 55,542 (Nov. 22, 2017). This second proposed action would, if finalized, add an applicability date to the 2015 Clean Water Rule of two years from the date of final action on the proposal. The proposal explains that "[w]ith this proposed rule, the agencies intend to maintain the status quo. . . while the agencies continue to work to consider possible revisions to the 2015 Rule." Id. at 55,542. The United States will notify the Court of any further significant developments. Respectfully submitted, 2 Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 3 /s/ Mithun Mansinghani (JDG by permission) MITHUN MANSINGHANI Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 (405) 522-8992 Mithun.mansinghani@oag.ok.gov Counsel for State of Oklahoma /s/ Michael H. Park (JDG by permission) MICHAEL H. PARK Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC 3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor New York, NY 10019 (212) 247-8006 park@consovoymccarthy.com Counsel for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Businesses, State Chamber of Oklahoma, Tulsa Regional Chamber, and Portland Cement Association JEFFREY H. WOOD Acting Assistant Attorney General /s/ J. David Gunter II J. DAVID GUNTER II United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division P.O. Box 7415 Washington, DC 20044 (202) 514-3785 David.Gunter2@usdoj.gov Counsel for the United States of America Dated: January 25, 2018 3 Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 4 CERTIFICATIONS I certify that on January 25, 2018, a copy of the foregoing Joint Status Report was served on all counsel of record in the above-captioned case, either by electronic service to those registered, or by U.S. Mail. I certify that all required privacy redactions have been made. I certify that the electronic submission of this Motion has been scanned for viruses with the most recent version of Microsoft System Center Endpoint Protection and is free from viruses. /s/ J. David Gunter II J. David Gunter II 4 Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 5 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 16–299. Argued October 11, 2017—Decided January 22, 2018 The Clean Water Act (Act) generally prohibits "the discharge of any pollutant by any person," except in express circumstances. 33 U. S. C. §1311(a). A "discharge of a pollutant" includes "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source," §1362(12), and the statutory term "navigable waters," in turn, means "the waters of the United States," §1362(7). Section §1311(a) con- tains important exceptions to the general prohibition on discharge of pollutants, including two permitting schemes that authorize certain entities to discharge pollutants into navigable waters: the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program adminis- tered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under §1342, and a program administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under §1344. The statutory term "waters of the United States" delineates the geographic reach of those permitting programs as well as other sub- stantive provisions of the Act. In 2015, the EPA and the Corps prof- fered a definition of that term through an agency regulation dubbed the Waters of the United States Rule (WOTUS Rule or Rule). The WOTUS Rule "imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector." 80 Fed. Reg. 37102. As stated in its preamble, the Rule "does not establish any regulatory requirements" and is instead "a definitional rule that clarifies the scope of" the statutory term "waters of the United States." Id., at 37054. There are two principal avenues of judicial review of an EPA ac- tion. Generally, parties may file challenges to final EPA actions in federal district courts, typically under the Administrative Procedure Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 6 2 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Syllabus Act. But the Clean Water Act enumerates seven categories of EPA actions for which review lies directly and exclusively in the federal courts of appeals, including, as relevant here, EPA actions "approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under sec- tion 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345," §1369(b)(1)(E), and EPA actions "is- suing or denying any permit under section 1342," §1369(b)(1)(F). Several parties, including petitioner National Association of Manu- facturers (NAM), challenged the Rule in United States District Courts across the country. Many parties, but not NAM, filed "protec- tive" petitions for review in various Courts of Appeals to preserve their challenges should their District Court lawsuits be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under §1369(b). The circuit-court actions were consolidated and transferred to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Meanwhile, the parallel actions in the District Courts con- tinued. NAM intervened as a respondent in the Sixth Circuit and, along with several other parties, moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdic- tion. The Government opposed those motions, arguing that the chal- lenges must be brought first in the Court of Appeals because the WOTUS Rule fell within subparagraphs (E) and (F) of §1369(b)(1). The Sixth Circuit denied the motions to dismiss. Held: Because the WOTUS Rule falls outside the ambit of §1369(b)(1), challenges to the Rule must be filed in federal district courts. Pp. 9– 20. (a) Neither subparagraph (E) nor subparagraph (F) of §1369(b)(1) grants courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review the WOTUS Rule in the first instance. Pp. 9–17. (1) Subparagraph (E) grants courts of appeals exclusive jurisdic- tion to review any EPA action "in approving or promulgating any ef- fluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345." 33 U. S. C. §1369(b)(1)(E). The WOTUS Rule does not fall within that provision. To begin, the Rule is not an "effluent limita- tion," which the Act defines as "any restriction. . . on quantities, rates, and concentrations" of certain pollutants "which are discharged from point sources into navigable waters." §1362(11). The WOTUS Rule imposes no such restriction; instead, it announces a regulatory definition for a statutory term. Nor does the Rule fit within subpara- graph (E)'s "other limitation" language. Congress' use of the phrase "effluent limitation or other limitation" suggests that an "other limi- tation" must be similar in kind to an "effluent limitation": that is, a limitation related to the discharge of pollutants. This natural read- ing is reinforced by subparagraph (E)'s cross-references to §§1311, 1312, 1316, and 1345, which each impose restrictions on the dis- charge of certain pollutants. The statutory structure thus confirms that an "other limitation" must also be some type of restriction on the Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 7 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 3 Syllabus discharge of pollutants. Because the WOTUS Rule does no such thing, it falls outside the scope of subparagraph (E). Even if the Government's reading of "effluent limitation or other limitation" were accepted, however, the Rule still does not fall within subparagraph (E) because it is not a limitation promulgated or ap- proved "under section 1311." As subparagraph (E)'s statutory context makes clear, this phrase is most naturally read to mean that the ef- fluent or other limitation must be approved or promulgated "pursu- ant to" or "by reason of the authority of" §1311. But the EPA did not promulgate or approve the WOTUS Rule under §1311, which neither directs nor authorizes the EPA to define a statutory phrase appearing elsewhere in the Act. Rather, the WOTUS Rule was promulgated or approved under §1361(a), which grants the EPA general rulemaking authority "to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [its] functions under" the Act. The Government contends that the statutory language "under sec- tion 1311" poses no barrier to its reading of subparagraph (E) be- cause the WOTUS Rule's practical effect is to make §1311's limita- tions applicable to the waters covered by the Rule. But the Government's "practical effects" test is not grounded in the statute, renders other statutory language superfluous, and ignores Congress' decision to grant courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction only over seven enumerated types of EPA actions set forth in §1369(b)(1). Pp. 9–15. (2) The Government fares no better under subparagraph (F), which grants courts of appeals exclusive and original jurisdiction to review any EPA action "in issuing or denying any permit under sec- tion 1342." §1369(b)(1)(F). That provision does not cover the WOTUS Rule, which neither issues nor denies NPDES permits is- sued under §1342. Seeking to avoid that conclusion, the Government invokes this Court's decision in Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U. S. 193, 196, and argues that the WOTUS Rule falls under subparagraph (F) because it is "functionally similar" to issuing or denying a permit. But that construction misconstrues Crown Simp- son, is unmoored from the statutory text, and would create surplus- age in other parts of the statute. Pp. 15–17. (b) The Government's policy arguments provide no basis to depart from the statute's plain language. First, the Government contends that initial circuit-court review of the WOTUS Rule would avoid a bi- furcated judicial-review scheme under which courts of appeals would review individual actions issuing or denying permits, whereas district courts would review broader regulations governing those actions. But, as explained, Congress has made clear that rules like the WOTUS Rule must be reviewed first in federal district courts. Crown Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 8 4 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Syllabus Simpson, 445 U. S., at 197, distinguished. Moreover, the bifurcation that the Government bemoans is no more irrational than Congress' choice to assign challenges to NPDES permits to circuit courts and challenges to §1344 permits to district courts, see §1369(b)(1)(E). And many of this Court's recent decisions regarding the agencies' ap- plication and definition of "waters of the United States" have origi- nated in district courts, not the courts of appeals. Second, the Court acknowledges that, as the Government argues, routing WOTUS Rule challenges directly to the courts of appeals may improve judicial effi- ciency. But efficiency was not Congress' only consideration. Had Congress wanted to prioritize efficiency, it could have authorized di- rect circuit-court review of all nationally applicable regulations, as it did under the Clean Air Act, instead of structuring judicial review as it did in §1369(b)(1). Third, the Government argues that initial re- view in the courts of appeals promotes the important goal of national uniformity with regard to broad regulations. Although that argu- ment carries some logical force, Congress did not pursue that end at all costs. Finally, contrary to the Government's contention, the pre- sumption favoring court-of-appeals review of administrative action does not apply here, for the scope of subparagraphs (E) and (F) is set forth clearly in the statute. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 745, 737, distinguished. Pp. 17–20. 817 F. 3d 261, reversed and remanded. SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 9 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash­ ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 16–299 _________________ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, PETITIONER v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT [January 22, 2018] JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. What are the "waters of the United States"? As it turns out, defining that statutory phrase—a central component of the Clean Water Act—is a contentious and difficult task. In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) tried their hand at proffering a definition through an agency regula­ tion dubbed the Waters of the United States Rule (WOTUS Rule or Rule).1 The WOTUS Rule prompted several parties, including petitioner National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), to challenge the regulation in federal court. This case, however, is not about the sub­ stantive challenges to the WOTUS Rule. Rather, it is about in which federal court those challenges must be filed. There are two principal avenues of judicial review of an —————— 1 We note that some of the parties and the Court of Appeals below refer to the WOTUS Rule as the "Clean Water Rule." Throughout this opinion, we have opted to use the former term in lieu of the latter. Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 10 2 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Opinion of the Court action by the EPA. Generally, parties may file challenges to final EPA actions in federal district courts, ordinarily under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). But the Clean Water Act (or Act) enumerates seven categories of EPA actions for which review lies directly and exclusively in the federal courts of appeals. See 86 Stat. 892, as amended, 33 U. S. C. §1369(b)(1). The Government con­ tends that the WOTUS Rule fits within two of those enu­ merated categories: (1) EPA actions "in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345," 33 U. S. C. §1369(b)(1)(E), and (2) EPA actions "in issuing or denying any permit under section 1342," §1369(b)(1)(F). We disagree. The WOTUS Rule falls outside the ambit of §1369(b)(1), and any challenges to the Rule therefore must be filed in federal district courts. I A Although the jurisdictional question in this case is a discrete issue of statutory interpretation, it unfolds against the backdrop of a complex administrative scheme. The Court reviews below the aspects of that scheme that are relevant to the question at hand. 1 Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 "to re­ store and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." §1251(a). One of the Act's principal tools in achieving that objective is §1311(a), which prohibits "the discharge of any pollutant by any person," except in express circumstances. A "discharge of a pollutant" is defined broadly to include "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source," such as a pipe, ditch, or other "discernible, confined and discrete conveyance." §§1362(12), (14). And "navigable Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 11 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 3 Opinion of the Court waters," in turn, means "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." §1362(7). Because many of the Act's substantive provisions apply to "navigable wa­ ters," the statutory phrase "waters of the United States" circumscribes the geographic scope of the Act in certain respects. Section 1311(a) contains important exceptions to the prohibition on discharge of pollutants. Among them are two permitting schemes that authorize certain entities to discharge pollutants into navigable waters. See Rapanos v. United States, 547 U. S. 715, 723 (2006) (plurality opin­ ion). The first is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi­ nation System (NPDES) program, which is administered by the EPA under §1342. Under that program, the EPA issues permits allowing persons to discharge pollutants that can wash downstream "upon [the] condition that such discharge will meet. . . all applicable requirements under sections 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1343." §1342(a)(1). "NPDES permits impose limitations on the discharge of pollutants, and establish related monitoring and reporting requirements, in order to improve the clean­ liness and safety of the Nation's waters." Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 174 (2000). One such limitation is an "ef­ fluent limitation," defined in the Act as a "restriction. . . on quantities, rates, and concentrations" of specified pollu­ tants "discharged from point sources into navigable wa­ ters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean, in­ cluding schedules of compliance." §1362(11). The second permitting program, administered by the Corps under §1344, authorizes discharges of " 'dredged or fill material,' " which "are solids that do not readily wash downstream." Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 723 (plurality opin­ ion). Although the Corps bears primary responsibility in determining whether to issue a §1344 permit, the EPA retains authority to veto the specification of a site for Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 12 4 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Opinion of the Court discharge of fill material. See §1344(c).2 2 The statutory term "waters of the United States" delin­ eates the geographic reach of many of the Act's substan­ tive provisions, including the two permitting programs outlined above. In decades past, the EPA and the Corps (collectively, the agencies) have struggled to define and apply that statutory term. See, e.g., 42 Fed. Reg. 37124, 37127 (1977); 51 Fed. Reg. 41216–41217 (1986). And this Court, in turn, has considered those regulatory efforts on several occasions, upholding one such effort as a permissi­ ble interpretation of the statute but striking down two others as overbroad. Compare United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U. S. 121 (1985) (upholding the Corps' interpretation that "waters of the United States" include wetlands adjacent to navigable waters), with Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U. S. 159 (2001) (rejecting application of the Corps' interpretation of "waters of the United States" as applied to sand and gravel pit); and Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 729, 757 (plurality opinion) (remanding for further review the Corps' application of the Act to wetlands lying "near ditches or man-made drains that eventually empty into traditional navigable waters"). In 2015, responding to repeated calls for a more precise definition of "waters of the United States," the agencies jointly promulgated the WOTUS Rule. 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (final rule). The WOTUS Rule was intended to "provid[e] simpler, clearer, and more consistent approaches for iden­ —————— 2 Both permitting programs allow the States to operate their own permitting schemes to govern waters within their borders. See 33 U. S. C. §§1342(b), 1344(g). Many States have opted to operate an NPDES permitting program under §1342(b), and two have done so under §1344(g). Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 13 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 5 Opinion of the Court tifying the geographic scope of the [Act]." Id., at 37057. To that end, the Rule separates waters into three jurisdic­ tional groups—waters that are categorically jurisdictional (e.g., interstate waters); those that require a case-specific showing of their significant nexus to traditionally covered waters (e.g., waters lying in the flood plain of interstate waters); and those that are categorically excluded from jurisdiction (e.g., swimming pools and puddles). See 33 CFR §328.3 (2017); 80 Fed. Reg. 37057. Although the revised regulatory definition "applies broadly to [the Act's] programs," the WOTUS Rule itself states that it "imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal govern­ ments, or the private sector." 80 Fed. Reg. 37102. Indeed, the Rule's preamble states that it "does not establish any regulatory requirements" and is instead "a definitional rule that clarifies the scope of " the statutory term "waters of the United States." Id., at 37054. B As noted above, the Act contemplates two primary avenues for judicial review of EPA actions, each with its own unique set of procedural provisions and statutes of limitations. For "certain suits challenging some agency actions," the Act grants the federal courts of appeals origi­ nal and "exclusive" jurisdiction. Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 568 U. S. 597, 608 (2013). Seven categories of EPA actions fall within that jurisdictional provision; they include actions of the EPA Administrator— "(A) in promulgating any standard of performance un­ der section 1316 of this title, (B) in making any de­ termination pursuant to section 1316(b)(1)(C) of this title, (C) in promulgating any effluent standard, pro­ hibition, or pretreatment standard under section 1317 of this title, (D) in making any determination as to a State permit program submitted under section Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 14 6 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Opinion of the Court 1342(b) of this title, (E) in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under sec­ tion 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345 of this title, (F) in issu­ ing or denying any permit under section 1342 of this title, and (G) in promulgating any individual control strategy under section 1314(l) of this title." 33 U. S. C. §1369(b)(1). To challenge those types of actions, a party must file a petition for review in the court of appeals for the "judicial district in which [the party] resides or transacts business which is directly affected by" the challenged action. Ibid. Any such petition must be filed within 120 days after the date of the challenged action. Ibid. If there are multiple petitions challenging the same EPA action, those petitions are consolidated in one circuit, chosen randomly from among the circuits in which the petitions were filed. See 28 U. S. C. §2112(a)(3). Section 1369(b) also contains a preclusion-of-review provision, which mandates that any agency action reviewable under §1369(b)(1) "shall not be subject to judicial review in any civil or criminal proceed­ ing for enforcement." 33 U. S. C. §1369(b)(2). The second avenue for judicial review covers final EPA actions falling outside the scope of §1369(b)(1). Those actions are typically governed by the APA.3 Under the APA, an aggrieved party may file suit in a federal district court to obtain review of any "final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court." See 5 U. S. C. §704. Those suits generally must be filed within six years after the claim accrues. 28 U. S. C. §2401(a). C Soon after the agencies promulgated the WOTUS Rule, —————— 3 The Act also grants federal district courts jurisdiction over certain kinds of citizen enforcement actions. See 33 U. S. C. §1365(a); Decker, 568 U. S., at 607–08. Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 15 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 7 Opinion of the Court several parties, including NAM, challenged the Rule in United States District Courts across the country. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) denied the Government's request to consolidate and transfer those actions to a single district court. See Order Denying Transfer in In re Clean Water Rule, MDL No. 2663, Doc. 163 (Oct. 13, 2015). Uncertainty surrounding the scope of the Act's judicial- review provision had also prompted many parties—but not NAM—to file "protective" petitions for review in various Courts of Appeals to preserve their challenges in the event that their District Court lawsuits were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under §1369(b). The JPML consolidated these appellate-court actions and transferred them to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. See Consolidation Order in In re EPA and Dept. of Defense Final Rule, MCP No. 135, Doc. 3 (July 28, 2015). The Court of Appeals thereafter issued a nationwide stay of the WOTUS Rule pending further proceedings. See In re EPA and Dept. of Defense Final Rule, 803 F. 3d 804 (CA6 2015). Meanwhile, parallel litigation continued in the District Courts. Some District Courts dismissed the pending lawsuits, concluding that the courts of appeals had exclu­ sive jurisdiction over challenges to the Rule. See Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, 2015 WL 5062506, *6 (ND W. Va., Aug. 26, 2015) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction); Georgia v. McCarthy, 2015 WL 5092568, *3 (SD Ga., Aug. 27, 2015) (concluding that court lacked jurisdiction to enter preliminary injunction). One District Court, by contrast, held that it had jurisdiction to review the WOTUS Rule. See North Dakota v. EPA, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1047, 1052– 1053 (ND 2015). NAM intentionally did not file a protective petition in any court of appeals to "ensure that [it] could challenge the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction." Brief for Petitioner 1, n. 1. Instead, NAM intervened as a respondent in the Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 16 8 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Opinion of the Court Sixth Circuit and, along with several other parties, moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.4 The Government op­ posed those motions, arguing that challenges to the WOTUS Rule must be brought first in the Court of Ap­ peals because the Rule fell within subparagraphs (E) and (F) of §1369(b)(1). The Court of Appeals denied the mo­ tions to dismiss in a fractured decision that resulted in three separate opinions. In re Dept. of Defense, 817 F. 3d 261 (2016). The Court of Appeals denied rehearing en banc. We granted certiorari, 580 U. S. ___ (2017), and now reverse.5 —————— 4 Some of the parties who filed protective petitions moved to dismiss those same petitions, agreeing with NAM that direct review of the WOTUS Rule belonged in the United States District Courts. Many of those parties, though nominally respondents before this Court, filed briefs in support of NAM. 5 There have been a number of developments since the Court granted review in this case. In February 2017, the President issued an Execu­ tive Order directing the agencies to propose a rule rescinding or revis­ ing the WOTUS Rule. See Exec. Order No. 13778, 82 Fed. Reg. 12497. On July 27, 2017, the agencies responded to that directive by issuing a proposed rule. See Definition of "Waters of the United States"— Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules, 82 Fed. Reg. 34899, 34901–34902. That proposed rule, once implemented, would rescind the WOTUS Rule and recodify the pre-2015 regulatory definition of "waters of the United States." See ibid. Then, in November 2017, following oral argument in this case, the agencies issued a second proposed rule establishing a new effective date for the WOTUS Rule. Definition of "Waters of the United States"—Addition of an Applicability Date to 2015 Clean Water Rule, 82 Fed. Reg. 55542 (explaining that the 2015 WOTUS Rule had an original effective date of Aug. 28, 2015). That November 2017 proposed rule sets a new effective date of "two years from the date of final action on [the agencies'] proposal," to "ensure that there is sufficient time for the regulatory process for reconsidering the definition of 'waters of the United States' to be fully completed." Id., at 55542–55544. The parties have not suggested that any of these subsequent devel­ opments render this case moot. That is for good reason. Because the WOTUS Rule remains on the books for now, the parties retain " 'a concrete interest' " in the outcome of this litigation, and it is not " 'im­ Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 17 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 9 Opinion of the Court II As noted, §1369(b)(1) enumerates seven categories of EPA actions that must be challenged directly in the fed­ eral courts of appeals. Of those seven, only two are at issue in this case: subparagraph (E), which encompasses actions "approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345," §1369(b)(1)(E), and subparagraph (F), which covers ac­ tions "issuing or denying any [NPDES] permit," §1369(b)(1)(F).6 We address each of those statutory provi­ sions in turn. A Subparagraph (E) grants courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review any EPA action "in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345." 33 U. S. C. §1369(b)(1)(E). The Government contends that "EPA's action in issuing the" WOTUS Rule "readily qualifies as an action promulgating or approving an 'other limitation' under section 1311," because the Rule establishes the "geographic scope of limitations promulgated under Sec­ tion 1311." Brief for Federal Respondents 18–19. We disagree. To begin, the WOTUS Rule is not an "effluent limita­ tion"—a conclusion the Government does not meaningfully —————— possible for a court to grant any effectual relief. . . to the prevailing party.' " Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172 (2013) (quoting Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U. S. 298, 307 (2012)). That remains true even if the agencies finalize and implement the November 2017 proposed rule's new effective date. That proposed rule does not purport to rescind the WOTUS Rule; it simply delays the WOTUS Rule's effective date. 6 It is undisputed that the WOTUS Rule does not fall within the re­ maining five categories set forth in §1369(b)(1). Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 18 10 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Opinion of the Court dispute. An "effluent limitation" is "any restriction. . . on quantities, rates, and concentrations" of certain pollutants "which are discharged from point sources into navigable waters." §1362(11). The WOTUS Rule imposes no such restriction. Rather, the Rule announces a regulatory definition for a statutory term and "imposes no enforceable duty" on the "private sector." See 80 Fed. Reg. 37102. The Government instead maintains that the WOTUS Rule is an "other limitation" under subparagraph (E). Although the Act provides no express definition of that residual phrase, the text and structure of subparagraph (E) tell us what that language means. And it is not as broad as the Government insists. For starters, Congress' use of the phrase "effluent limi­ tation or other limitation" in subparagraph (E) suggests that an "other limitation" must be similar in kind to an "effluent limitation": that is, a limitation related to the discharge of pollutants. An "other limitation," for in­ stance, could be a non-numerical operational practice or an equipment specification that, like an "effluent limita­ tion," restricts the discharge of pollutants, even though such a limitation would not fall within the precise statu- tory definition of "effluent limitation." That subparagraph (E) cross-references §§1311, 1312, 1316, and 1345 rein­ forces this natural reading. The unifying feature among those cross-referenced sections is that they impose re­ strictions on the discharge of certain pollutants. See, e.g., 33 U. S. C. §1311 (imposing general prohibition on "the discharge of any pollutant by any person"); §1312 (govern­ ing "water quality related effluent limitations"); §1316 (governing national performance standards for new sources of discharges); §1345 (restricting discharges and use of sewage sludge). In fact, some of those sections give us concrete examples of the type of "other limitation" Congress had in mind. Section 1311(b)(1)(C) allows the EPA to issue "any more stringent limitation[s]" if technology­ Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 19 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 11 Opinion of the Court based effluent limitations cannot "meet water quality standards, treatment standards, or schedules of compli­ ance." And §1345(d)(3) provides that, if "it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical limitation" on pollu­ tants in sewage sludge, the EPA may "promulgate a de­ sign, equipment, management practice, or operational standard." All of this demonstrates that an "other limita­ tion," at a minimum, must also be some type of restriction on the discharge of pollutants. Because the WOTUS Rule does no such thing, it does not fit within the "other limita­ tion" language of subparagraph (E). The Government tries to escape this conclusion by argu­ ing that subparagraph (E) expressly covers "any effluent limitation or other limitation," §1369(b)(1)(E) (emphasis added), and that the use of the word "any" makes clear that Congress intended subparagraph (E) to sweep broadly and encompass all EPA actions imposing limitations of any sort under the cross-referenced sections. True, use of the word "any" will sometimes indicate that Congress intended particular statutory text to sweep broadly. See, e.g., Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U. S. 214, 220 (2008) ("Congress' use of 'any' to modify 'other law en­ forcement officer' is most naturally read to mean law enforcement officers of whatever kind"). But whether it does so necessarily depends on the statutory context, and the word "any" in this context does not bear the heavy weight the Government puts upon it. Contrary to the Government's assertion, the word "any" cannot expand the phrase "other limitation" beyond those limitations that, like effluent limitations, restrict the discharge of pollu­ tants. In urging otherwise, the Government reads the words "effluent limitation and other" completely out of the statute and insists that what Congress really meant to say is "any limitation" under the cross-referenced sections. Of course, those are not the words that Congress wrote, and this Court is not free to "rewrite the statute" to the Gov­ Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 20 12 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Opinion of the Court ernment's liking. Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust, 579 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 14) ("[O]ur constitutional structure does not permit this Court to rewrite the statute that Congress has enacted" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even if the Court accepted the Government's reading of "effluent limitation or other limitation," however, the Rule still does not fall within subparagraph (E) because it is not a limitation promulgated or approved "under section 1311." 7 §1369(b)(1)(E). This Court has acknowledged that the word "under" is a "chameleon" that "must draw its meaning from its context." Kucana v. Holder, 558 U. S. 233, 245 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to subparagraph (E), the statutory context makes clear that the prepositional phrase—"under section 1311"—is most naturally read to mean that the effluent limitation or other limitation must be approved or prom­ ulgated "pursuant to" or "by reason of the authority of " §1311. See St. Louis Fuel and Supply Co., Inc. v. FERC, 890 F. 2d 446, 450 (CADC 1989) (R. B. Ginsburg, J.) ("'un­ der' means 'subject [or pursuant] to' or 'by reason of the authority of '"); cf. Black's Law Dictionary 1368 (5th ed. 1979) (defining "under" as "according to"). Here, the EPA did not promulgate or approve the WOTUS Rule under §1311. As noted above, §1311 generally bans the dis­ charge of pollutants into navigable waters absent a per­ mit. Nowhere does that provision direct or authorize the EPA to define a statutory phrase appearing elsewhere in the Act. In fact, the phrase "waters of the United States" does not appear in §1311 at all. Rather, the WOTUS Rule was promulgated or approved under §1361(a), which —————— 7 Because no party argues that the WOTUS Rule is an EPA action approving or promulgating an effluent limitation or other limitation under §1312, §1316, or §1345, the Court confines its analysis to §1311. Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 21 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 13 Opinion of the Court grants the EPA general rulemaking authority "to pre­ scribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [its] functions under" the Act. Proving the point, the Govern­ ment's own brief cites §1361(a) as the statutory provision that "authorized the [EPA] to issue the [WOTUS] Rule." Brief for Federal Respondents 17, n. 3.8 The Government nonetheless insists that the language "under section 1311" poses no barrier to its reading of subparagraph (E) because the "[WOTUS] Rule's legal and practical effect is to make effluent and other limitations under Section 1311 applicable to the waters that the Rule covers." Id., at 28. But the Government's "practical­ effects" test is not grounded in the statutory text. Subpar­ agraph (E) encompasses EPA actions that "approv[e] or promulgat[e] any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311," not EPA actions that have the "legal or practical effect" of making such limitations applicable to certain waters. Tellingly, the Government offers no textual basis to read its "practical-effects" test into subparagraph (E). Beyond disregarding the statutory text, the Govern­ ment's construction also renders other statutory language superfluous. Take, for instance, subparagraph (E)'s cross- references to §§1312 and 1316. See §1369(b)(1)(E) (cover­ ing EPA action "in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, —————— 8 It is true that the agencies cited §1311 among the provisions under which they purported to have issued the Rule. See 80 Fed. Reg. 37055. They also cited other provisions, including §§1314, 1321, 1341, 1342, and 1344. Ibid. As noted, however, §1311 grants the EPA no authority to clarify the regulatory definition of "waters of the United States." Furthermore, the agencies' passing invocation of §1311 does not control our interpretive inquiry. See Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U. S. 275, 283 (1978) (Congress "did not empower the Adminis­ trator. . . to make a regulation an 'emission standard' by his mere designation"). Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 22 14 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Opinion of the Court 1316, or 1345" (emphasis added)). Section 1311(a) author­ izes discharges that comply with those two cross- referenced sections. See §1311(a) (prohibiting discharge of pollutants "[e]xcept as in compliance with. . . sections 1312, 1316. . ."). Thus, EPA actions under §§1312 and 1316 also would have a "legal and practical effect" on the scope of §1311's general prohibition of discharges, as the Government contends is the case with the WOTUS Rule. If, on the Government's reading, EPA actions under §§1312 and 1316 would count as actions "under section 1311" sufficient to trigger subparagraph (E), Congress would not have needed to cross-reference §§1312 and 1316 again in subparagraph (E). That Congress did so under­ cuts the Government's proposed "practical-effects" test. Similarly, the Government's "practical-effects" test ignores Congress' decision to grant appellate courts exclu­ sive jurisdiction only over seven enumerated types of EPA actions set forth in §1369(b)(1). Section 1313, which gov­ erns the EPA's approval and promulgation of state water- quality standards, is a prime example. Approving or promulgating state water-quality standards under §1313 also has the "legal and practical effect" of requiring that effluent limitations be tailored to meet those standards. Under the Government's reading, subparagraph (E) would encompass EPA actions taken under §1313, even though such actions are nowhere listed in §1369(b)(1). Courts are required to give effect to Congress' express inclusions and exclusions, not disregard them. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) ("Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally pre­ sumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion" (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). Accordingly, subparagraph (E) does not confer original and exclusive jurisdiction on courts of appeals to review Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 23 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 15 Opinion of the Court the WOTUS Rule. B The Government fares no better under subparagraph (F). That provision grants courts of appeals exclusive and original jurisdiction to review any EPA action "in issu­ ing or denying any permit under section 1342." §1369(b)(1)(F). As explained above, NPDES permits issued under §1342 "authoriz[e] the discharge of pollu­ tants" into certain waters "in accordance with specified conditions." Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U. S. 49, 52 (1987). The WOTUS Rule neither issues nor denies a permit under the NPDES permitting program. Because the plain language of subparagraph (F) is "unambiguous," "our inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well." BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States, 541 U. S. 176, 183 (2004) (plurality opinion). Rather than confront that statutory text, the Govern­ ment asks us to ignore it altogether. To that end, the Government urges us to apply the "functional interpretive approach" that it purports the Court employed in Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U. S. 193 (1980) (per curiam). Brief for Federal Respondents 31. Crown Simp- son, the Government says, broadens the statutory inquiry under subparagraph (F) by directing courts to ask whether agency actions are " 'functionally similar' " to permit issu­ ances or denials. Brief for Federal Respondents 33 (quot­ ing Crown Simpson, 445 U. S., at 196). According to the Government, the WOTUS Rule is "functionally similar" to issuing or denying a permit because it establishes the geographical bounds of EPA's permitting authority and thereby dictates whether permits may or may not be issued. We reject this approach because it misconstrues Crown Simpson and ignores the statutory text. First, Crown Simpson provides scant support for the Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 24 16 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Opinion of the Court Government's atextual construction of subparagraph (F). In that case, the Court held that subparagraph (F) con­ ferred jurisdiction over the EPA's veto of a state-issued permit. See 445 U. S., at 196. The Court explained that "[w]hen [the] EPA. . . objects to effluent limitations con­ tained in a state-issued permit, the precise effect of its action is to 'den[y]' a permit within the meaning of [sub­ paragraph F]." Ibid. Contrary to the Government's sug­ gestion, the WOTUS Rule in no way resembles the EPA's veto of a state-issued permit addressed in Crown Simpson. Although the WOTUS Rule may define a jurisdictional prerequisite of the EPA's authority to issue or deny a permit, the Rule itself makes no decision whatsoever on individual permit applications. Crown Simpson is there­ fore inapposite. In addition, the Government's proposed "functional interpretive approach" is completely unmoored from the statutory text. As explained above, subparagraph (F) applies only to EPA actions "issuing or denying" a permit "under section 1342." The Government invites us to broaden that narrow language to cover any agency action that dictates whether a permit is issued or denied. Con­ gress easily could have drafted subparagraph (F) in that broad manner. Indeed, Congress could have said that subparagraph (F) covers EPA actions "relating to whether a permit is issued or denied," or, alternatively, EPA ac­ tions "establishing the boundaries of EPA's permitting authority." But Congress chose not to do so. The Court declines the Government's invitation to override Congress' considered choice by rewriting the words of the statute. See Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14). Finally, the Government's interpretation of subpara­ graph (F) would create surplusage in other parts of §1369(b)(1). Subparagraph (D) is one example. That provision gives federal appellate courts original jurisdic­ Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 25 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 17 Opinion of the Court tion to review EPA actions "making any determination as to a State permit program submitted under section 1342(b)." Put differently, subparagraph (D) establishes the boundaries of EPA's permitting authority vis-à-vis the States. Under the Government's functional interpretive approach, however, subparagraph (F) would already reach actions delineating the boundaries of EPA's permitting authority, thus rendering subparagraph (D) unnecessary. Absent clear evidence that Congress intended this sur­ plusage, the Court rejects an interpretation of the statute that would render an entire subparagraph meaningless. As this Court has noted time and time again, the Court is "obliged to give effect, if possible, to every word Congress used." Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 339 (1979). For these reasons, subparagraph (F) does not grant courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review the WOTUS Rule in the first instance. III A Unable to anchor its preferred reading in the statutory text, the Government seeks refuge in a litany of extratex­ tual considerations that it believes support direct circuit- court review of the WOTUS Rule. Those considerations— alone and in combination—provide no basis to depart from the statute's plain language. First, the Government contends that initial circuit-court review of the WOTUS Rule would avoid an irrational bifurcated judicial-review scheme under which federal courts of appeals would review individual actions issuing or denying permits, whereas district courts would review broader regulations governing those actions. In E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U. S. 112 (1977), the Court described such a bifurcated regime as a "truly per­ verse situation." Id., at 136. And a few years later, in Crown Simpson, the Court declared that "[a]bsent a far Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 26 18 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Opinion of the Court clearer expression of congressional intent, we are unwill­ ing to read the Act as creating such a seemingly irrational bifurcated system." 445 U. S., at 197. Unlike in Crown Simpson, however, here the Court perceives such a "clea[r] expression of congressional intent." Ibid. Even if the Court might draft the statute differently, Congress made clear that rules like the WOTUS Rule must be reviewed first in federal district courts. Moreover, the bifurcation that the Government bemoans is no more irrational than Congress' choice to assign challenges to NPDES permits to circuit courts, and challenges to §1344 permits to district courts. See 33 U. S. C. §1369(b)(1)(E). And notably, many of this Court's recent decisions regarding the agencies' application and definition of the term "waters of the United States" have originated in district courts, not the courts of appeals. See, e.g., Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U. S. ___ (2016); Sackett v. EPA, 566 U. S. 120 (2012); Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 729 (plurality opinion). Second, and relatedly, the Government argues that immediate court-of-appeals review facilitates quick and orderly resolution of disputes about the WOTUS Rule. We acknowledge that routing WOTUS Rule challenges di- rectly to the courts of appeals may improve judicial efficiency. See Crown Simpson, 445 U. S., at 197 (noting that "the additional level of judicial review" that would occur in district courts "would likely cause delays in resolving disputes under the Act"); see also Harrison v. PPG Indus- tries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578, 593 (1980) ("The most obvious advantage of direct review by a court of appeals is the time saved compared to review by a district court, followed by a second review on appeal"). But efficiency was not Con­ gress' only consideration. Had Congress wanted to priori­ tize efficiency, it could have authorized direct circuit-court review of all nationally applicable regulations, as it did under the Clean Air Act. See 42 U. S. C. §7607(b)(1) (granting the D. C. Circuit original jurisdiction to review Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 27 Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2018) 19 Opinion of the Court "any other nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator under this chapter" and granting regional circuits jurisdiction to review "any other final action of the Administrator under this chapter. . . which is locally or regionally applicable"). That Congress structured judicial review under the Act differently confirms what the text makes clear—that §1369(b)(1) does not grant courts of appeals original juris­ diction to review many types of EPA action, including the WOTUS Rule. Third, the Government contends that "initial review in a court of appeals" promotes " '[n]ational uniformity, an important goal in dealing with broad regulations.' " Brief for Federal Respondents 35 (quoting National Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 673 F. 2d 400, 405, n. 15 (CADC 1982) (R. B. Ginsburg, J.)). That argument carries some logical force. After all, the numerous challenges to the WOTUS Rule in this very case were consolidated in one Court of Appeals, avoiding any risk of conflict among other courts of appeals, whereas the same was not true for the challenges filed in district courts, leading to some conflict­ ing outcomes. But even if Congress sought to ensure national uniformity, it did not pursue that end at all costs. Although §1369(b)(1) does not authorize immediate circuit-court review of all national rules under the Act, it does permit federal appellate courts to review directly certain effluent and other limitations and individual permit decisions. See, e.g., §§1369(b)(1)(E), (F). It is true that Congress could have funneled all challenges to na­ tional rules to the courts of appeals, but it chose a different tack here: It carefully enumerated the seven categories of EPA action for which it wanted immediate circuit- court review and relegated the rest to the jurisdiction of the federal district courts. Ultimately, the Government's policy arguments do not obscure what the statutory language makes clear: Sub­ Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019935928 Date Filed: 01/25/2018 Page: 28 20 NATIONAL ASSN. OF MFRS. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Opinion of the Court paragraphs (E) and (F) do not grant courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review the WOTUS Rule. B In a final effort to bolster its preferred reading of the Act, the Government invokes the presumption favoring court-of-appeals review of administrative action. Accord­ ing to the Government, when a direct-review provision like §1369(b)(1) exists, this Court "will not presume that Con­ gress intended to depart from the sound policy of placing initial. . . review in the courts of appeals" "[a]bsent a firm indication that Congress intended to locate initial APA review of agency action in the district courts." Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 745 (1985). But the Government's reliance on Florida Power is mis­ placed. Unlike the "ambiguous" judicial review provisions at issue in Florida Power, id., at 737, the scope of subpar­ agraphs (E) and (F) is set forth clearly in the statute. As the Court recognized in Florida Power, jurisdiction is "governed by the intent of Congress and not by any views we may have about sound policy." Id., at 746. Here, Congress' intent is clear from the statutory text.9 IV For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case with in- structions to dismiss the petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction. It is so ordered. —————— 9 Although the parties paint dueling portraits of the legislative his­ tory, the murky waters of the Congressional Record do not provide helpful guidance in illuminating Congress' intent in this case. Even for "[t]hose of us who make use of legislative history," "ambiguous legisla­ tive history" cannot trump "clear statutory language." Milner v. De- partment of Navy, 562 U. S. 562, 572 (2011). Just so here.

[10531888] Reversed and Remanded. Terminated on the merits after oral hearing. Written, unsigned, unpublished; Judges Lucero, Phillips and Moritz. Mandate to issue. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 01/29/2018 09:41 AM]

Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019937249 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 29, 2018 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS; TULSA REGIONAL CHAMBER; PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION; STATE CHAMBER OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiffs - Appellants, No. 16-5038 (D.C. No. 4:15-CV-00386-CVE-PJC) v. (N.D. Okla.) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; E. SCOTT PRUITT, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; JO-ELLEN DARCY, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Defendants - Appellees. ------------------------------ PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION; CATO INSTITUTE; SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF FLORIDA; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF IDAHO; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; STATE OF Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019937249 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 2 MISSOURI; STATE OF NEBRASKA; NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER; NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT; STATE OF NEVADA; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; STATE OF TENNESSEE; STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF WISCONSIN; STATE OF WYOMING; AMERICAN ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; GREATER HOUSTON BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; LEADING BUILDERS OF AMERICA; NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF FOREST OWNERS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS; NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL; NATIONAL STONE, SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION; PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL; TEXAS FARM BUREAU; U.S. POULTRY & EGG ASSOCIATION, Amici Curiae. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– STATE OF OKLAHOMA EX REL. MIKE HUNTER, in his official capacity as 2 Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019937249 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 3 Attorney General of Oklahoma, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 16-5039 (D.C. No. 4:15-CV-00381-CVE-FHM) v. (N.D. Okla.) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; E. SCOTT PRUITT, in his official capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; JO-ELLEN DARCY, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Defendants - Appellees. ------------------------------ PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION; CATO INSTITUTE; SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ALASKA; STATE OF ARIZONA; STATE OF ARKANSAS; STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF FLORIDA; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF IDAHO; STATE OF INDIANA; STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF KENTUCKY; STATE OF LOUISIANA; STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; STATE OF MISSOURI; STATE OF NEBRASKA; NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER; NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT; STATE OF NEVADA; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; STATE OF OHIO; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; STATE OF TENNESSEE; STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF UTAH; STATE OF WEST 3 Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019937249 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 4 VIRGINIA; STATE OF WISCONSIN; STATE OF WYOMING; AMERICAN ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION; AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; GREATER HOUSTON BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; LEADING BUILDERS OF AMERICA; NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF FOREST OWNERS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS; NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL; NATIONAL STONE, SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION; PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL; TEXAS FARM BUREAU; U.S. POULTRY & EGG ASSOCIATION, Amici Curiae. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before LUCERO, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Plaintiffs filed these actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma to challenge a regulation issued by the Environmental * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 4 Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019937249 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 5 Protection Agency defining the term "waters of the United States" for purposes of the Clean Water Act. The district court dismissed both cases, concluding that such challenges must be brought in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1). We consolidated the subsequent appeals. Following oral argument, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case raising the same issue. Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Dep't of Def., 137 S. Ct. 811 (2017). We abated these appeals pending the Court's decision in that case. The Supreme Court has now held that the regulation at issue "falls outside the ambit of § 1369(b)(1), and any challenges to the Rule therefore must be filed in federal district courts." Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Dep't of Def., ___ U.S. ___, No. 16-299, 2018 WL 491526, at *4 (Jan. 22, 2018). We accordingly LIFT the abatement, REVERSE, and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings. Entered for the Court Per Curiam 5 Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019937250 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80257 (303) 844-3157 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Chris Wolpert Clerk of Court January 29, 2018 Chief Deputy Clerk Mr. John J. Carwile Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Fiasco 1500 ParkCentre 525 South Main Tulsa, OK 74103 Mr. John Michael Connolly Mr. William Consovoy Consovoy McCarthy 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Mr. P. Clayton Eubanks Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Karen R. Harned NFIB Small Business Legal Center 1201 F Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20004 Mr. Andrew D. Herman Miller & Chevalier Chartered 900 16th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Ms. Mary Elizabeth Kindelt McDonald, McCann, Metcalf & Carwile 15 East 5th Street, Suite 1400 Tulsa, OK 74103 Mr. Steven P. Lehotsky U.S. Chamber Litigation Center 1615 H Street, NW Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019937250 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 2 Washington, DC 20062-2000 Mr. James P. McCann McDonald, McCann, Metcalf & Carwile 15 East 5th Street, Suite 1400 Tulsa, OK 74103 Mr. Thomas R. McCarthy Consovoy McCarthy 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Michael H. Park Consovoy McCarthy Park 3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor New York, NY 10019 Mr. Warren Postman U.S. Chamber Litigation Center 1615 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20062-2000 Luke A. Wake NFIB Small Business Legal Center 1201 F Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20004 RE: 16-5038, 16-5039, Chamber of Commerce, et al v. EPA, et al Dist/Ag docket: 4:15-CV-00386-CVE-PJC Dear Counsel: Enclosed is a copy of the order and judgment issued today in this matter. The court has entered judgment on the docket pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 36. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 40, any petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment. Please note, however, that if the appeal is a civil case in which the United States or its officer or agency is a party, any petition for rehearing must be filed within 45 days after entry of judgment. Parties should consult both the Federal Rules and local rules of this court with regard to applicable standards and requirements. In particular, petitions for rehearing may not exceed 15 pages in length, and no answer is permitted unless the court enters an order requiring a response. If requesting rehearing en banc, the requesting party must file 6 paper copies with the clerk, in addition to satisfying all Electronic Case Filing requirements. See Fed. R. App. P. Rules 35 and 40, and 10th Cir. R.35 and 40 for further information governing petitions for rehearing. Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019937250 Date Filed: 01/29/2018 Page: 3 Please contact this office if you have questions. Sincerely, Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of the Court cc: Timothy S. Bishop Chad Clamage Julio N. Colomba Bridget DiCosmo Amy Jeanne Dona Andrew James Doyle Anthony L. Francois John David Gunter II Kimberly S Hermann M. Reed Hopper Richard Peter Hutchison Lara Katz Michael B. Kimberly Robert Lundman Mithun Mansinghani Cathryn Dawn McClanahan Eric Murphy Michael J. O'Neill E. Scott Pruitt Matthias L. Sayer Ilya Shapiro Patrick R. Wyrick EAS/jm

[10536921] Mandate issued. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 02/20/2018 07:50 AM]

Appellate Case: 16-5038 Document: 01019946849 Date Filed: 02/20/2018 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80257 (303) 844-3157 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Chris Wolpert Clerk of Court February 20, 2018 Chief Deputy Clerk Mr. Mark C. McCartt U.S. District Court for the N. District of Oklahoma 333 W. Fourth Street Room 411 United States Courthouse Tulsa, OK 74103 RE: 16-5038, 16-5039, Chamber of Commerce, et al v. EPA, et al Dist/Ag docket: 4:15-CV-00386-CVE-PJC Dear Clerk: Please be advised that the mandate for this case has issued today. Please file accordingly in the records of your court or agency. Please contact this office if you have questions. Sincerely, Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of the Court cc: All Parties on Appeal EAS/mlb

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: None. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
doc
04/20/2016
[10360867] Civil case docketed. Preliminary record filed. DATE RECEIVED: 04/20/2016,04/20/2016 Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of appearance due 05/04/2016 for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber. Notice of appearance due on 05/04/2016 for Jo-Ellen Darcy, Gina McCarthy, United States Army Corps of Engineers and United States Environmental Protection Agency [16-5038] [Entered: 04/20/2016 10:42 AM]
04/22/2016
[10361751] Notice of appearance submitted by John David Gunter II and Robert J. Lundman for Appellees Jo-Ellen Darcy, Gina McCarthy, United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA in 16-5038, 16-5039 for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: Yes. Served on 04/22/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039]--[Edited 04/22/2016 by AT to remove PDF as pleading was filed on 4/22/2016.] JDG [Entered: 04/22/2016 12:26 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
04/22/2016
[10361803] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Robert Lundman and Mr. John David Gunter, II for EPA, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Gina McCarthy and Jo-Ellen Darcy in 16-5038 and 16-5039. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: y (the parties listed are or were counsel of record or parties to the appeals). Served on 04/22/2016. Manner of Service: email [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 04/22/2016 01:32 PM]
05/03/2016
[10365116] Notice of appearance submitted by John Michael Connolly William S. Consovoy for Appellants Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: Yes. Served on 05/03/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038] --[Edited 05/04/2016 by SLS to remove PDF file from docket entry.] JMC [Entered: 05/03/2016 08:07 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
05/04/2016
[10365128] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. J. Michael Connolly and Mr. William Consovoy for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, State Chamber of Oklahoma, Tulsa Regional Chamber and Portland Cement Association. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 05/04/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038] [Entered: 05/04/2016 07:33 AM]
doc
05/04/2016
[10365203] Docketing statement filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber. Served on 05/04/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038] JMC [Entered: 05/04/2016 09:58 AM]
doc
05/04/2016
[10365208] Notice received from Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber that a transcript is not necessary for this appeal. Served on: 05/04/2016. Manner of Service: email [16-5038] JMC [Entered: 05/04/2016 10:00 AM]
05/04/2016
[10365233] Minute order filed - Notice due that record is complete by 05/31/2016 for Philip Lombardi, Clerk of Court. (Text Only - No Attachment) [16-5038] [Entered: 05/04/2016 10:34 AM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
05/05/2016
[10365769] Filed notice record is complete. Served on 05/05/2016. Appellants' brief and appendix are due on 06/14/2016 for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma, and Tulsa Regional Chamber. [16-5038] [Entered: 05/05/2016 01:17 PM]
05/05/2016
[10365786] Notice of appearance submitted by Mary E. Kindelt for Appellants Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 05/05/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038] [Edited to remove PDF as pleading has been filed-- Edited 05/05/2016 by NA] MEK [Entered: 05/05/2016 01:45 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
05/05/2016
[10365797] Notice of appearance filed by Ms. Mary Elizabeth Kindelt for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, State Chamber of Oklahoma, Tulsa Regional Chamber and Portland Cement Association. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 05/05/2016. Manner of Service: email [16-5038] [Entered: 05/05/2016 02:01 PM]
05/27/2016
[10373298] Notice of appearance submitted by Michael H. Park for Appellants Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 05/27/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038] [Edited to remove PDF as pleading has been filed-- Edited 05/27/2016 by NA] MHP [Entered: 05/27/2016 02:20 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
05/27/2016
[10373345] Notice of appearance filed by Michael H. Park for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, State Chamber of Oklahoma, Tulsa Regional Chamber and Portland Cement Association. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: y. Served on 05/27/2016. Manner of Service: email [16-5038] [Entered: 05/27/2016 03:00 PM]
doc
06/09/2016
[10376671] Motion filed by Appellees Jo-Ellen Darcy, Gina McCarthy, United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA in 16-5038, 16-5039, This is a joint motion filed with permission on behalf of all parties to the lead and related appeal. to consolidate appeals, to file an oversize brief 20000 words long, to extend time to file appellant/petitioner's brief until 07/01/2016, to extend time to file appellee/respondent's brief until 08/19/2016, to extend time to file a reply brief until 09/12/2016. Served on: 06/09/2016. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] JDG [Entered: 06/09/2016 09:37 AM]
doc
06/13/2016
[10377741] Order filed by Clerk of the Court (LLS) granting the joint motion to govern proceedings as modified. The previously established briefing schedules are vacated. 16-5038 & 16-5039 are consolidated for all procedural purposes, including briefing, submission, and, if granted, oral argument. Appellants shall file two separate opening briefs of no more than 10,000 words and a single joint consolidated appendix on or before 07/01/2016 for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma, Tulsa Regional Chamber and E. Scott Pruitt. Appellees shall file a single, consolidated response brief of no more than 16,500 words and appellants may file two separate reply briefs of no more than 7,000 words each. Served on 06/13/2016. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 06/13/2016 10:32 AM]
doc
07/01/2016
[10384947] Appellant's appendix filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber. Total number of volumes filed: 1. Served on 07/01/2016. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039]--[Edited 07/05/2016 by KLP to delete the sealed PDF. Per counsel, it should not be sealed.] WC [Entered: 07/01/2016 04:31 PM]
doc
07/01/2016
[10384952] Appellant/Petitioner's brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber. 7 paper copies to be provided to the court. Served on 07/01/2016 by email. Oral argument requested? Yes. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] WC [Entered: 07/01/2016 04:38 PM]
doc
07/01/2016
[10384965] Appellant/Petitioner's brief filed by E. Scott Pruitt. 7 paper copies to be provided to the court. Served on 07/01/2016 by email. Oral argument requested? Yes. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5039, 16-5038]--[Edited 07/05/2016 by KLP to attach a searchable PDF.] PCE [Entered: 07/01/2016 06:32 PM]
07/06/2016
[10385547] Minute order filed - Appellees' brief now due 08/04/2016 for United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Gina McCarthy and Jo-Ellen Darcy. (Text Only - No Attachment) [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/06/2016 11:48 AM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
07/07/2016
[10385872] Motion filed by Appellees Jo-Ellen Darcy, Gina McCarthy, United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA in 16-5038, 16-5039 to extend time to file appellee/respondent's brief until 08/19/2016. Served on: 07/05/2016. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] JDG [Entered: 07/07/2016 07:53 AM]
07/07/2016
[10385972] Notice of appearance submitted by Eric E. Murphy for State of Ohio and Other Amici States for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 07/07/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] --[Edited 07/07/2016 by AT to remove PDF as pleading was filed on 7/7/2016.] EM [Entered: 07/07/2016 10:12 AM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
07/07/2016
[10385991] Notice of appearance filed by Eric Murphy for State of Ohio in 16-5038 and 16-5039. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 07/07/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/07/2016 10:35 AM]
doc
07/07/2016
[10386055] Order filed by Clerk of the Court granting appellees' motion for 15-day extension of time to file brief. Appellees' brief now due 08/19/2016 for United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Gina McCarthy and Jo-Ellen Darcy. Served on 07/07/2016. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/07/2016 12:02 PM]
07/07/2016
This entry has been removed from the docket. The brief has been filed. [SLS] [10386279] Amicus Curiae brief submitted by Pacific Legal Foundation, Cato Institute, And Southeastern Legal Foundation. 7 paper copies to be provided to the court. Served on 07/07/2016. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes.--[Edited 07/08/2016 by MB to remove pdf from docket entry] [16-5038] JNC [Entered: 07/07/2016 04:47 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
07/08/2016
[10386382] Notice of appearance submitted by Timothy S. Bishop, Chad M. Clamage for The American Farm Bureau Federation, et al for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] --[Edited 07/08/2016 by SLS to remove PDF file from docket entry.] TSB [Entered: 07/08/2016 08:53 AM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
07/08/2016
[10386383] Notice of appearance submitted by Michael B. Kimberly for The American Farm Bureau Federation, et al for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. --[Edited 07/08/2016 by MB to remove pdf from docket entry][16-5038, 16-5039] MBK [Entered: 07/08/2016 08:55 AM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
07/08/2016
[10386395] Amicus Curiae brief filed by Southeastern Legal Foundation, Cato Institute and Pacific Legal Foundation in 16-5038, 16-5039. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/08/2016 09:15 AM]
07/08/2016
[10386398] Minute order filed - Notice of appearance due on 07/22/2016 for Cato Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation and Southeastern Legal Foundation. (Text Only - No Attachment) [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/08/2016 09:22 AM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
07/08/2016
[10386416] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Michael B. Kimberly for National Association of Home Builders, National Mining Association, American Forest & Paper Association, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, Public Lands Council, API, National Association of Manufacturers, Texas Farm Bureau, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, The American Farm Bureau Federation, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, Greater Houston Builders Association, Leading Builders of America, National Alliance of Forest Owners, National Association of Realtors, National Corn Growers Association, National Pork Producers Council and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association in 16-5038, 16-5039. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/08/2016 09:52 AM]
07/08/2016
This entry - Amicus Curiae brief submitted by The American Farm Bureau, et al. has been removed from the docket as the brief has been filed. [NA] [10386440] [16-5038, 16-5039] TSB [Entered: 07/08/2016 10:15 AM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
07/08/2016
This entry has been removed from the docket. [KLP] Wrong document attached. Attorney will refiled. [10386449] Amicus Curiae brief submitted by Landmark Legal Foundation. 7 paper copies to be provided to the court. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038]--[Edited 07/08/2016 by KLP] RPH [Entered: 07/08/2016 10:25 AM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
07/08/2016
[10386457] Notice of appearance filed by Chad Clamage and Timothy S. Bishop for The American Farm Bureau Federation; American Forest & Paper Association; American Petroleum Institute; American Road And Transportation Builders Association; Greater Houston Builders Association; Leading Builders Of America; National Alliance Of Forest Owners; National Association Of Home Builders; National Association Of Manufacturers; National Association Of Realtors; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Corn Growers Association; National Mining Association; National Pork Producers Council; National Stone, Sand, And Gravel Association; Public Lands Council; Texas Farm Bureau; And U.S. Poultry & Egg Association in 16-5038, 16-5039. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/08/2016 10:38 AM]
07/08/2016
[10386509] Notice of appearance submitted by Eric E. Murphy for AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, NC Department of Environmental Quality, ND, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WI, and WY for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039]--[Edited 07/08/2016 by KLP to delete the attachment; entry filed.] EM [Entered: 07/08/2016 12:08 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
07/08/2016
This entry has been removed from the docket. [KLP] Attachment incomplete. Attorney will refile. [10386515] Amicus Curiae brief submitted by Landmark Legal Foundation. 7 paper copies to be provided to the court. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038]--[Edited 07/08/2016 by KLP] RPH [Entered: 07/08/2016 12:12 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
07/08/2016
This entry has been removed from the docket. The brief has been filed. [SLS] [10386544] Amicus Curiae brief submitted by AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, NC Department of Environmental Quality, NM State Engineer, NM Environmental Department, ND, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WI, and WY. 7 paper copies to be provided to the court. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. --[Edited 07/11/2016 by MB to remove pdf from docket entry][16-5038, 16-5039] EM [Entered: 07/08/2016 12:43 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
07/08/2016
[10386569] Notice of appearance filed by Eric Murphy for State of Alaska, State of Mississippi, State of West Virginia, State of Indiana, State of Alabama, State of Georgia, State of Nevada, State of Tennessee, State of Kansas, State of Idaho, State of Kentucky, State of Arkansas, State of North Dakota, State of Utah, State of Louisiana, State of Florida, State of Colorado, State of Wisconsin, State of Nebraska, State of Michigan, State of Wyoming, State of South Carolina, State of South Dakota, State of Texas, State of Arizona, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and State of Ohio in 16-5038. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/08/2016 01:16 PM]
07/08/2016
This entry has been removed from the docket. [KLP because the brief has been filed.] [10386576] Amicus Curiae brief submitted by Landmark Legal Foundation. 7 paper copies to be provided to the court. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] RPH [Entered: 07/08/2016 01:21 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
07/08/2016
[10387057] Amicus Curiae brief filed by New Mexico Environment Department, New Mexico State Engineer, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, State of Alabama, State of Alaska, State of Arizona, State of Arkansas, State of Colorado, State of Florida, State of Georgia, State of Idaho, State of Indiana, State of Kansas, State of Kentucky, State of Louisiana, State of Michigan, State of Mississippi, State of Missouri, State of Nebraska, State of Nevada, State of North Dakota, State of Ohio, State of South Carolina, State of South Dakota, State of Tennessee, State of Texas, State of Utah, State of West Virginia, State of Wisconsin and State of Wyoming in 16-5038 and 16-5039. Original and 7 copies. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/11/2016 01:12 PM]
doc
07/08/2016
[10387086] Amicus Curiae brief filed by American Forest & Paper Association, API, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, Greater Houston Builders Association, Leading Builders of America, National Alliance of Forest Owners, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Realtors, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Mining Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, Public Lands Council, Texas Farm Bureau, The American Farm Bureau Federation and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association in 16-5038, 16-5039. 7 copies. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/11/2016 01:47 PM]
doc
07/08/2016
[10387981] Amicus Curiae brief filed by Landmark Legal Foundation in 16-5038 and 16-5039. Original and 7 copies. Served on 07/08/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/13/2016 12:49 PM]
doc
07/11/2016
[10387139] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Matthias L. Sayer for New Mexico State Engineer in 16-5038, 16-5039. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 07/11/2016. Manner of Service: email [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/11/2016 02:51 PM]
doc
07/11/2016
[10387160] Notice of appearance filed by Ms. Lara Katz for New Mexico Environment Department in 16-5038 and 16-5039. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 07/11/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/11/2016 03:17 PM]
07/11/2016
[10387075] Notice of appearance submitted by Matthias L. Sayer for Amicus Curiae New Mexico State Engineer in 16-5038, 16-5039Matthias L. Sayer for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 07/11/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039]--[Edited 07/11/2016 by AT to remove PDF as pleading was filed on 7/11/2016.] MLS [Entered: 07/11/2016 01:39 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
07/11/2016
[10387088] Notice of appearance submitted by Lara Katz for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Environment Department in 16-5038The New Mexico Environment Department for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 07/11/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] --[Edited 07/11/2016 by AT to remove PDF as pleading was filed on 7/11/2016.] LK [Entered: 07/11/2016 01:48 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
07/12/2016
[10387726] Notice of appearance submitted by Julio N. Colomba, Anthony L. Francois, M. Reed Hopper, Ilya Shapiro, and Kimberly Hermann for Cato Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, and Southeastern Legal Foundation for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 07/12/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038]--[Edited 07/13/2016 by KLP to delete the attachment;entry filed.] JNC [Entered: 07/12/2016 05:32 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
07/13/2016
[10387797] Notice of appearance filed by Julio N. Colomba, Mr. Anthony L. Francois, Ms. Kimberly S Hermann, Mr. M. Reed Hopper and Mr. Ilya Shapiro for Pacific Legal Foundation, Cato Institute and Southeastern Legal Foundation in 16-5038. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 07/13/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/13/2016 08:39 AM]
07/13/2016
[10387985] Minute order filed - Notice of appearance due on 07/27/2016 for Landmark Legal Foundation. (Text Only - No Attachment) [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/13/2016 12:51 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
07/13/2016
[10388015] Notice of appearance submitted by Richard P. Hutchison for Amicus Curiae Landmark Legal Foundation in 16-5038Landmark Legal Foundation for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 07/13/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Edited to remove PDF as pleading has been filed-- Edited 07/13/2016 by NA] RPH [Entered: 07/13/2016 01:47 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
07/13/2016
[10388057] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Richard Peter Hutchison for Landmark Legal Foundation in 16-5038 and 16-5039. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 07/13/2016. Manner of Service: email [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 07/13/2016 02:58 PM]
doc
08/19/2016
[10398322] Appellee/Respondent's brief filed by Jo-Ellen Darcy, Gina McCarthy, United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA in 16-5038, 16-5039. 7 paper copies to be provided to the court. Served on: 08/19/2016. Manner of service: email. Oral argument requested? Yes. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] JDG [Entered: 08/19/2016 02:46 PM]
doc
08/19/2016
[10398327] Supplemental appendix filed by Jo-Ellen Darcy, Gina McCarthy, United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA in 16-5038, 16-5039. Total number of volumes filed: 1. Served on 08/19/2016. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] JDG [Entered: 08/19/2016 02:53 PM]
doc
08/22/2016
[10398752] Motion filed by Appellants Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber, State of Oklahoma to extend time to file a reply brief until 09/12/2016. Served on: 08/22/2016. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] WC [Entered: 08/22/2016 03:31 PM]
08/23/2016
[10399014] Minute order filed - Appellants' optional reply brief now due 09/06/2016 for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Tulsa Regional Chamber, Portland Cement Association and State Chamber of Oklahoma. (Text Only - No Attachment) [16-5038] [Entered: 08/23/2016 11:45 AM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
08/23/2016
[10399068] Order filed by Clerk of the Court granting Attorney motion to extend time to file appellant's optional reply brief until 09/12/2016 for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Tulsa Regional Chamber, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and E. Scott Pruitt. Served on 08/23/2016. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 08/23/2016 01:19 PM]
doc
09/12/2016
[10404163] Appellant/Petitioner's reply brief filed by E. Scott Pruitt. 7 paper copies to be provided to the court. Served on 09/12/2016. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5039, 16-5038] PCE [Entered: 09/12/2016 03:26 PM]
doc
09/12/2016
[10404176] Appellant/Petitioner's reply brief filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber. 7 paper copies to be provided to the court. Served on 09/12/2016. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] WC [Entered: 09/12/2016 03:39 PM]
doc
09/19/2016
[10406001] Calendar notice sent to counsel. Arguments to be held on 11/17/2016 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom II, Byron White United States Courthouse, Denver, CO. Counsel is required to go to http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov under the argument calendar tab to obtain an important notice regarding calendared cases and required forms. The calendar acknowledgment form must be completed and filed with the clerk via Electronic Case Filing within 10 days of today's date. Counsel for the Amici Curiae do not participate at oral argument without written permission from the court and do not need to file a calendar acknowledgement form until this permission is granted. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 09/19/2016 09:51 AM]
09/19/2016
[10406101] Notice of appearance submitted by Mithun S. Mansinghani for Appellant E. Scott Pruitt in 16-5039 for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 09/19/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5039, 16-5038]--[Edited 09/19/2016 by PDW to remove the PDF from this entry and attach it to the entry below] MM [Entered: 09/19/2016 12:58 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
09/22/2016
[10407575] Oral Argument Acknowledgment Form filed by Jo-Ellen Darcy, Gina McCarthy, United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA in 16-5039, 16-5038. Served on 09/22/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5039, 16-5038] JDG [Entered: 09/22/2016 02:40 PM]
doc
09/29/2016
[10409907] Motion filed by Appellants Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber to reschedule oral argument. Served on: 09/29/2016. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] WC [Entered: 09/29/2016 02:42 PM]
doc
09/29/2016
[10409910] Oral Argument Acknowledgment Form filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Served on 09/29/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] --[Edited 09/29/2016 by AS to show party filer] MHP [Entered: 09/29/2016 02:47 PM]
doc
10/03/2016
[10410500] Order filed by Clerk of the Court - Appellants' motion to reschedule oral argument filed by Appellants Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, State Chamber of Oklahoma, Tulsa Regional Chamber and Portland Cement Association is denied. Served on 10/03/2016. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 10/03/2016 11:34 AM]
doc
11/11/2016
[10421206] Supplemental authority filed by Jo-Ellen Darcy, Gina McCarthy, United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA in 16-5038. Served on 11/11/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038] JDG [Entered: 11/11/2016 08:02 AM]
doc
11/14/2016
[10421664] Response filed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association and State Chamber of Oklahoma to Appellees' Notice of Supplemental Authority. Served on 11/14/2016. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] MHP [Entered: 11/14/2016 07:28 PM]
doc
11/17/2016
[10422790] Case argued by Michael Park and Mithun Mansinghani for the Appellants; John Gunter for the Appellees; and submitted to Judges Lucero, Phillips and Moritz. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 11/17/2016 02:06 PM]
doc
11/17/2016
[10422820] Motion to release the oral argument recording filed by Movant Ms. Bridget DiCosmo in 16-5038, 16-5039. Served on 11/17/2016. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 11/17/2016 02:38 PM]
doc
11/28/2016
[10424731] Order filed by Judges Lucero, Phillips and Moritz granting motion to release oral argument recording. Served on 11/28/2016. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 11/28/2016 08:45 AM]
doc
11/28/2016
[10424738] Motion filed by Appellant E. Scott Pruitt to release the oral argument recording. Served on: 11/28/2016. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] MM [Entered: 11/28/2016 09:18 AM]
doc
11/28/2016
[10424792] Order filed by Clerk of the Court denying without prejudice to renewal in compliance with 10th Cir. R. 27.3(C), motion to release oral argument recording. Served on 11/28/2016. [16-5038] [Entered: 11/28/2016 10:39 AM]
doc
01/03/2017
[10433338] Motion filed by Appellant E. Scott Pruitt to release the oral argument recording. Served on: 01/03/2017. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] MM [Entered: 01/03/2017 01:57 PM]
doc
01/17/2017
[10436564] Order filed by Judges Lucero, Phillips and Moritz granting appellant E. Scott Pruitt's motion to release oral argument recording and directing the clerk to release the recording to the requesting attorney. Served on 01/17/2017. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 01/17/2017 07:46 AM]
doc
01/18/2017
[10437052] Supplemental authority filed by Jo-Ellen Darcy, Gina McCarthy, United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA in 16-5039. Served on 01/18/2017. Manner of Service: email. [16-5038, 16-5039] JDG [Entered: 01/18/2017 09:22 AM]
doc
01/19/2017
[10437415] Order filed by Judges Lucero, Phillips and Moritz (EAS) abating cases pending the issuance of the United States Supreme Court's decision in number 16-299, National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, et al. On or before 03/31/2017 the parties shall file a joint written report advising this court of the status of the Supreme Court proceedings. Served on 01/19/2017. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 01/19/2017 08:16 AM]
doc
02/10/2017
[10443527] Motion filed by Appellant E. Scott Pruitt for attorney Patrick R. Wyrick to withdraw as counsel. Served on: 02/10/2017. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5039, 16-5038] PRW [Entered: 02/10/2017 02:59 PM]
doc
02/10/2017
[10443535] Motion filed by Appellant E. Scott Pruitt for attorney E. Scott Pruitt to withdraw as counsel. Served on: 02/10/2017. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5039, 16-5038] ESP [Entered: 02/10/2017 03:02 PM]
doc
02/13/2017
[10443768] Order filed by Judges Lucero, Phillips and Moritz granting Mr. E. Scott Pruitt's and Mr. Patrick R. Wyrick's motions to withdraw. Served on 02/13/2017. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 02/13/2017 11:06 AM]
doc
02/21/2017
[10445614] Motion filed by Appellant E. Scott Pruitt to substitute with State of Oklahoma ex rel. Michael J. Hunter, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Oklahoma. Served on: 02/21/2017. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] MM [Entered: 02/21/2017 12:25 PM]
doc
02/22/2017
[10446006] Order filed by Judges Lucero, Phillips and Moritz (JKC) granting the State of Oklahoma's motion to substitute party. Michael J. Hunter is substituted for E. Scott Pruitt as the Attorney General of Oklahoma. In addition, we sua sponte substitute E. Scott Pruitt for Gina McCarthy as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Served on 02/22/2017. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 02/22/2017 10:15 AM]
doc
02/28/2017
[10447861] Motion filed by Appellant Michael J. Hunter to amend Case Caption. Served on: 02/28/2017. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] MM [Entered: 02/28/2017 02:40 PM]
02/28/2017
[10447915] Order filed by Clerk of the Court granting the State of Oklahoma's motion to amend case caption of appeal no. 16-5039. The Oklahoma Attorney General's name is amended to Mike Hunter. Served on 02/28/2017. Text only entry - no attachment. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 02/28/2017 04:06 PM] (Text entry; no document attached.)
doc
03/13/2017
[10450682] Status report filed by Jo-Ellen Darcy, E. Scott Pruitt, United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA in 16-5038, 16-5039. Served on 03/13/2017. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] JDG [Entered: 03/13/2017 10:39 AM]
doc
03/14/2017
[10451222] Order filed by Judges Lucero, Phillips and Moritz continuing abatement of these appeals. The parties shall file status reports within 45 days of the date of this order advising this court of the status of the Supreme Court proceedings. Served on 03/14/2017. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 03/14/2017 10:59 AM]
doc
04/28/2017
[10462994] Status report filed by Jo-Ellen Darcy, E. Scott Pruitt, United States Army Corps of Engineers and EPA in 16-5038, 16-5039, State of Oklahoma, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. Served on 04/28/2017. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] JDG [Entered: 04/28/2017 08:23 AM]
doc
04/28/2017
[10463189] Order filed by Judges Lucero, Phillips and Moritz. The parties shall file a joint written report advising this court of the status of the Supreme Court proceedings. Joint status report is due on 07/17/2017 for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma, Tulsa Regional Chamber and Mike Hunter. Served on 04/28/2017. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 04/28/2017 12:22 PM]
doc
07/11/2017
[10481484] Status report filed by Jo-Ellen Darcy, EPA, E. Scott Pruitt and United States Army Corps of Engineers in 16-5038, 16-5039, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; State of Oklahoma (Joint Report). Served on 07/11/2017. Manner of Service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [16-5038, 16-5039] JDG [Entered: 07/11/2017 08:10 AM]
doc
08/23/2017
[10492715] Order filed by Lucero, Phillips and Moritz continuing abatement. The parties shall file written notice within 5 days after the United States Supreme Court enters a decision in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, No. 16-299. Served on 08/23/2017. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 08/23/2017 03:56 PM]
doc
01/25/2018
[10531205] Notice filed by Jo-Ellen Darcy, EPA, E. Scott Pruitt and United States Army Corps of Engineers in 16-5038, 16-5039. Served on 01/25/2018 by email. [16-5038, 16-5039] JDG [Entered: 01/25/2018 12:49 PM]
doc
01/29/2018
[10531888] Reversed and Remanded. Terminated on the merits after oral hearing. Written, unsigned, unpublished; Judges Lucero, Phillips and Moritz. Mandate to issue. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 01/29/2018 09:41 AM]
doc
02/20/2018
[10536921] Mandate issued. [16-5038, 16-5039] [Entered: 02/20/2018 07:50 AM]
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.