North Dakota v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 127 F. Supp. 3d 1047

Background

In 2015 EPA and the Army Corps issued the final "Clean Water Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States" (effective Aug 28, 2015) expanding the definition of jurisdictional waters.
Twelve States (including North Dakota, Wyoming, et al.) and New Mexico agencies sued the Agencies on June 29, 2015 and moved for a preliminary injunction to block the Rule.
Plaintiffs argued the Rule exceeded EPA statutory authority under the Clean Water Act and violated APA (arbitrary and capricious, inadequate notice) and NEPA procedures; they also alleged imminent irreparable sovereign and economic harms.
The Agencies defended the Rule as within EPA/CORPS authority and as not imposing new effluent or permit-like limitations; they argued the Rule was a logical outgrowth of the proposal and supported by technical/scientific documents.
The court concluded it had district-court (original) jurisdiction, applied the Dataphase preliminary-injunction factors, and found plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits and to suffer irreparable harm; it granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the Rule.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction: whether Courts of Appeals have exclusive jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. §1369(b)(1)	Rule is definitional and not an "effluent limitation" or permit-issuance equivalent; district court has jurisdiction	Rule is functionally tied to permitting; review belongs in courts of appeals	District court has original jurisdiction; §1369(b)(1) does not cover this Rule
Statutory authority: whether EPA exceeded Clean Water Act delegation (Rapanos/Kennedy significant-nexus test)	Rule authorizes regulation of waters lacking a significant nexus to navigable waters; exceeds congressional grant	Rule fits within Kennedy/agency precedent and identifies tributaries/wetlands with significant nexus	Plaintiffs likely to succeed; Rule likely exceeds statutory authority under relevant significant-nexus analysis
APA arbitrary-and-capricious / logical-outgrowth: adequacy of agency reasoning, data, and notice	Agencies failed to explain or provide verifiable data, arbitrarily set criteria (e.g., 4,000-ft), and final rule departs from proposed rule (neighboring definition)	Agencies relied on Technical Support and economic analyses; changes are within rulemaking discretion	Plaintiffs have a fair (and under review even substantial) chance of success; Rule likely arbitrary and capricious and not a logical outgrowth
Irreparable harm / balance of equities / public interest	States will lose sovereign control over land/water use, face unrecoverable costs and regulatory burdens immediately upon effective date	Implementation serves public interest by protecting waters and providing certainty; delay imposes limited harm	Irreparable harm to States is likely; balance and public interest favor temporary injunction delaying Rule implementation

Key Cases Cited

Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193 (1980) (broad interpretation of §1369 appeals jurisdiction considered)
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (plurality and Kennedy concurrence establishing significant‑nexus test)
National Cotton Council of America v. U.S. E.P.A., 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009) (Congress did not intend courts of appeals jurisdiction over all EPA CWA actions)
Friends of the Everglades v. U.S. E.P.A., 699 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2012) (rulemaking that neither issues nor denies permits is not necessarily §1369(b)(1)(F) reviewable)
Iowa League of Cities v. E.P.A., 711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussion of §1369 jurisdictional scope)
Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four‑factor preliminary injunction test)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard for agency rulemaking)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (irreparable harm and public interest considerations for injunctive relief)