Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
714 F.3d 608 (2013)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Mingo Logan Coal Company (Mingo) (plaintiff) received a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) to discharge waste materials from its mountaintop coal mine into three streams that served as disposal sites. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) made note of the severe environmental impacts of mountaintop mining, but it did not exercise its authority to object to the issuance of the permit under § 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The permit included a clause that allowed the Army Corps to suspend, modify, or revoke the permit at any time. The EPA requested that the Army Corps use this authority to modify the permit based on new information and circumstances regarding the mining operation’s potential to harm water quality. The Army Corps rejected the EPA’s request. The EPA issued a final determination withdrawing the specification of two of the three streams as disposal sites. Mingo brought an action against the EPA in the district court, challenging its authority to modify a permit issued three years prior by the Army Corps. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mingo. The EPA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Henderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.