Ohio v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
803 F.3d 804
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Eighteen states challenged the 2015 Clean Water Rule (defining “waters of the United States”) adopted by the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA, alleging jurisdictional expansion and APA defects.
- Petitioners sought dismissal for lack of appellate-court jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. §1369(b)(1) but also moved for a nationwide stay of the Rule pending review; briefing on jurisdiction remained pending.
- The panel considered the four-factor stay test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to others, public interest) and the proper "status quo" to preserve while jurisdiction is resolved.
- The court concluded the status quo was the pre-Rule regulatory framework following Rapanos and determined petitioners acted without undue delay in seeking relief.
- The court found petitioners showed a substantial possibility of success on merits, citing concerns that the Rule’s distance-based bright-line limits may conflict with Rapanos and that the Final Rule may not be a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule nor supported by record-specific science.
- Balancing harms and public interest, the court granted a nationwide stay of the Clean Water Rule pending further order, while acknowledging jurisdictional questions would be resolved soon; Judge Keith dissented, arguing the court should first decide subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a nationwide stay of the Clean Water Rule is appropriate pending review | The Rule expands federal jurisdiction beyond Rapanos, was promulgated in violation of APA notice-and-comment (not a logical outgrowth), and lacks record-specific scientific support; petitioners likely to succeed on merits | Agencies argue court has jurisdiction and petitioners have not met stay standards; Rule clarifies and uses peer-reviewed science and technical bright-lines are permissible | Court granted nationwide stay pending jurisdictional decision, finding substantial possibility of success on merits and favoring preservation of pre-Rule status quo |
| Proper status quo to preserve while jurisdiction resolved | Restore pre-Rule federal-state collaborative framework (post-Rapanos) | Preserve the Rule as the current governing standard | Court held the status quo is the pre-Rule regime and stayed the Rule to maintain uniformity |
| Whether the Final Rule satisfied APA notice-and-comment (logical outgrowth) | Proposed rule omitted specific distance limitations; Final Rule’s bright-line distances were unforeseeable and thus not a logical outgrowth | Agencies contend they provided notice by soliciting comments on "geographical limits" and "distance limitations" and relied on technical expertise | Court found the record does not convincingly show interested parties had specific notice of the chosen distance limits and that the logical-outgrowth question requires further scrutiny |
| Whether petitioners will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay and whether public interest favors a stay | States will face burdens, regulatory uncertainty, and resource impacts from nationwide implementation; cooperative federalism favors pause | Agencies argue no immediate irreparable harm and that water protection could suffer if Rule stayed | Court found no clear immediate irreparable environmental harm but emphasized nationwide burdens and public interest in preserving uniform pre-Rule regulation, supporting a stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (plurality and Kennedy opinions governing limits of Clean Water Act jurisdiction)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors and standards for preliminary relief)
- Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007) (logical-outgrowth standard for notice-and-comment rulemaking)
- United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (1947) (authority to preserve conditions pending jurisdictional determination)
- Mich. Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991) (stay factors guidance)
- United States v. Cundiff, 555 F.3d 200 (6th Cir. 2009) (discussing meaning of Rapanos opinions)
- Nat'l Cotton Council of Am. v. U.S. E.P.A., 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009) (addressing agency action and jurisdictional questions)
- United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985) (scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction)
- Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook Cty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (limits on Corps' jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act)