Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • H
  • Hawkes Co., Inc. v. United States Army Corps…Hawkes Co., Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Hawkes Co., Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
782 F.3d 994 (2015)


Hawkes Company, Inc. (Hawkes) (plaintiff) owned wetlands on which it wished to conduct peat mining. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Act), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1344(a) and 1362(7), provided that operators were required to have a permit to discharge mining materials in “waters of the United States.” The permitting process was lengthy and expensive, but violations of this provision would result in substantial penalties. Hawkes was unsure whether its wetlands constituted waters of the United States under the Act, but it nonetheless filed a permit application with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (defendant), seeking permission to conduct the mining. While Hawkes’s application was pending, the Corps issued an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (JD) that Hawkes’s wetlands were waters of the United States. The Corps indicated to Hawkes that its permit application would likely be denied. Hawkes appealed the JD to the Corps’ Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations (DCG). The DCG found that the record did not support the JD and remanded the issue to the Corps for reconsideration. On remand, the Corps issued a revised JD, again finding that the wetlands constituted navigable United States waters under the Act. The JD stated that it was a “final Corps permit decision.” Hawkes filed suit against the Corps, challenging the JD. The Corps argued that the JD was not a final agency action and thus was not ripe for judicial review. Specifically, the Corps argued that Hawkes had two other remedies in court: (1) complete the permitting process or (2) commence mining and challenge the determination of the Corps when the Corps imposed penalties under the Act. The district court agreed and dismissed Hawkes’s complaint. Hawkes appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Loken, J.)

Concurrence (Kelly, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial