Murray Energy Corp. v. United States Department of Defense
817 F.3d 261
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- The consolidated multi-circuit litigation challenges the Agencies’ 2015 “Clean Water Rule,” which defines “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
- Petitioners argue the Rule expands federal jurisdiction, conflicts with Supreme Court precedent on “significant nexus,” and violated the Administrative Procedure Act; the Agencies defend the Rule’s lawfulness and rulemaking process.
- Many petitions were filed in both district courts and courts of appeals; several petitioners moved to dismiss petitions in the Sixth Circuit, arguing §1369(b)(1) does not permit direct circuit-court review of a definitional rule.
- §1369(b)(1) enumerates seven categories of EPA actions reviewable directly in circuit courts; subsections (E) (effluent or “other limitation”) and (F) (issuing or denying permits) were the only potentially implicated provisions.
- The Sixth Circuit (McKeague, J.) denied motions to dismiss, holding the Court has jurisdiction under both (E) and (F) based on a functional, purposive reading of the statute and controlling precedent; separate concurrence (Griffin, J.) concurs in result only (bound by National Cotton); dissent (Keith, J.) disagrees with expansive readings.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Agencies' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Clean Water Rule is an “effluent limitation or other limitation” under §1369(b)(1)(E) | The Rule is a definitional regulation, not an effluent or other limitation subject to circuit-court review. | The Rule is a "basic" regulatory definition that indirectly restricts point-source discharges and permit issuers, so it qualifies as an “other limitation.” | Circuit court has jurisdiction under (E): function-over-form approach (E.I. du Pont and progeny) brings the definitional Rule within (E). |
| Whether the Rule is an action “in issuing or denying any permit” under §1369(b)(1)(F) | The Rule does not issue or deny NPDES permits and thus falls outside (F). | The Rule materially affects permitting requirements (who needs permits), so it is functionally similar to permit decisions and falls within (F). | Circuit court has jurisdiction under (F): functional reading (Crown Simpson, National Cotton) supports review because the Rule impacts permitting. |
| Whether textualism or functional/purposive approach governs construction of §1369(b)(1) | Movants/concurring judge: apply plain-text/textualist reading; limitations must be tied to listed statutory sections. | Agencies/lead opinion: follow Supreme Court and circuit precedents favoring a practical, functional approach to avoid anomalous bifurcated review. | Court applies functional/purposive approach, following Supreme Court and circuit precedents, and declines to adopt strictly literal construction. |
| Whether exercising circuit-court jurisdiction raises due-process or preclusion concerns about the §1369(b)(2) 120‑day bar | Movants: direct review precludes later challenges and may deprive parties of fair notice or defenses in enforcement actions. | Agencies: concerns are speculative; §1369(b)(2) preserves finality and does not bar as-applied challenges in enforcement. | Court rejects due-process objection as speculative and premature; finds any overbroad preclusion can be addressed when ripe. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977) (adopts practical construction of §1369 to permit circuit-court review of basic regulations closely related to actions enumerated in the statute)
- Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193 (1980) (holds actions "functionally similar" to permit denials fall within §1369(b)(1)(F))
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (prefers initial APA review in courts of appeals absent clear congressional intent otherwise; policy and judicial-economy considerations inform jurisdictional construction)
- National Cotton Council of America v. U.S. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009) (binds Sixth Circuit; holds that regulations governing permit issuance can be reviewed directly in court of appeals under §1369(b)(1)(F))
- Nat. Res. Def. Council v. U.S. EPA, 673 F.2d 400 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (adopts a "practical rather than cramped" construction of §1369 to permit appellate review of broad regulatory rules)
- Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Costle, 566 F.2d 446 (4th Cir. 1977) (finds regulatory requirements that constrain industry discretion qualify as "other limitations" under §1369(b)(1)(E))