11th Circuit: CWR decision belongs to 6th Circuit
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently dealt a significant blow to opponents of the Obama administration’s controversial Clean Water Rule (CWR), which redefines the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The three-judge panel sitting in Atlanta ordered that an appeal taken on behalf of a number of states, including Utah, would be put on hold pending a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that made an identical challenge to the CWR.
Sixth Circuit Issues National Stay of CWR in Split Decision
The Sixth Circuit ordered a nationwide stay of the CWR last year in In re EPA, while it determined whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case. In February, the Sixth Circuit decided that it, and not a lower federal district court, had jurisdiction over the case. in a splintered decision, two of the three judges deciding the jurisdiction question concluded that the Sixth Circuit had jurisdiction to hear challenges to the CWR under either 33 U.S.C § 1369(b)(1)(E) or (F). While acknowledging that the WOTUS rule does not fit neatly into the categories for which § 1369 provides for circuit court jurisdiction, Judge David McKeague concluded that these provisions have been given expansive interpretations by the courts, sufficient to provide for jurisdiction.
A Strange Concurrence
Judge Richard Allen Griffin concurred in the result, even though he concluded that neither provision of § 1369 supplied the Sixth Circuit with jurisdiction to hear challenges to the CWR. Nonetheless, Judge Griffin set forth that the Sixth Circuit was obligated to conclude that the court had jurisdiction under § 1369(b)(1)(F) pursuant to the ruling in National Council of America v. U.S. EPA. In National Council of America, the Sixth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over any regulation “governing” permits. According to Griffin, while there would be no jurisdiction under a “plain text reading” of the statute, he concluded he was “constrained by our court’s precedent holding that ‘issuing or denying any permit’ means more than just that.”
Senior Judge Damon J. Keith dissented from Judge McKeague’s majority opinion, claiming that the relevant portions of the CWA do not provide for jurisdiction to challenge the WOTUS rule in a circuit court, and that the National Cotton Council decision should not be read so broadly as to provide for jurisdiction here.
Georgia Federal Court Determines Jurisdiction Rests With Court of Appeals
While the Sixth Circuit has decided it can hear a challenge to the CWR, other opponents of the CWR filed a similar case against the CWR in federal court in the Southern District of Georgia on June 30, 2015. In that case, the plaintiffs made much the same contentions as those in the Sixth Circuit case—namely that the CWR was invalid and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) should be enjoined from enforcing the rule. On August 27, 2015, the Georgia federal court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin enforcement of the CWR, concluding that 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1) gives courts of appeals exclusive original jurisdiction over challenges to the rule. Plaintiffs appealed the court’s ruling to the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta.
Eleventh Circuit Asks Parties to File Supplemental Briefing in Light of Sixth Circuit’s Decision
After the Sixth Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction over challenges to the CWA, the Eleventh Circuit asked the parties to brief:
1) whether this appeal is moot in light of the Sixth Circuit’s nationwide stay of enforcement of the Clean Water Rule in In re EPA I;
2) whether we should stay any further proceedings in this case while the In re EPA I stay order remains in effect;
3) whether we should hold this appeal in abeyance pending the Sixth Circuit’s decision concerning the validity of the rule;
4) whether we are bound by the Sixth Circuit’s determination in In re EPA II that courts of appeals have exclusive original jurisdiction over challenges to the rule;
5) whether the determination of jurisdiction in In re EPA II has preclusive effect on that issue in this appeal; and
6) if not, what persuasive weight we should give to In re EPA II.
Eleventh Circuit Leaves CWR Determination Up to Sixth Circuit
Following oral argument on the aforementioned issues, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion declining to hear the merits of the appellant’s case, instead deferring to any ruling on the merits from the Sixth Circuit. According to the Eleventh Circuit, it would be a “colossal waste of judicial resources” for it to get involved in the ongoing legal challenge to the rule. Citing the general rule against “duplicative litigation,” the Eleventh Circuit said:
If there were an exhibition hall for prudential restraint on the exercise of judicial authority, this case could be an exemplar in the duplicative litigation wing. The case before us and the case before the Sixth Circuit involve the same parties on each side, the same jurisdictional and merits issues, and the same requested relief … It would be a colossal waste of judicial resources for both this Court and the Sixth Circuit to undertake to decide the same issues about the same rule presented by the same parties.
All Eyes on the Sixth Circuit
Given the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to defer to the Sixth Circuit, all eyes are on the Sixth Circuit and its impending decision on the merits of the challenge to the CWR. Petitioners’ initial substantive briefs on the merits are due September 30, 2016, respondent agencies’ brief is due November 30, 2016, and replies are due January 20, 2017 (Inauguration Day). The court has ordered the parties to submit a joint appendix of documents from the administrative record for the court’s consideration by February 3, 2017. The Sixth Circuit will then schedule oral argument. The extended schedule reflects the complexity of the litigation and while the current Administration will file the respondents’ brief, the next Administration will argue the cause.
U.S. Chamber and Others Ask Tenth Circuit to Revive Challenge to CWR
In addition to the Sixth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit cases over the CWR, The U.S. Chamber, along with the National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma, and Tulsa Regional Chamber, filed their own appeal at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the Tenth Circuit to reverse the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma’s decision to dismiss the case.
In their opening brief, the appellants argued to the Tenth Circuit that it has an independent obligation to determine its jurisdiction. Additionally, to the extent the district court deferred to the Sixth Circuit, the appellants argued the district court erred because the CWA’s text and the established default rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) clearly indicate that the district court has original jurisdiction over the WOTUS rule, as none of the CWA’s limited exceptions providing for original jurisdiction in the courts of appeals apply in this case. Finally, appellants argued that the agencies’ policy-based reading of the CWA finds no support in Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent, much less in the plain text of the CWA. The Tenth Circuit has not yet ruled on the question of jurisdiction before it.
* Photo Cred.: capitalpress.com