Documents

Amicus Brief — EPA v. California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control Bd.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Brief · 1976

The Clean Air Act contains a section exactly analogous to the provision now in question in the Water Act (Compare 33 U.S.C. § 1323 (Water Act), and 42 U.S.C. & 1857f (Air Act) ], which is also before … The provi- sion interpreted, 42 U.S.C. § 1857e-S(a) (2), in the Clean Air Act is the analogue of 33 U.S.C. §1319(a)(2) in the FWPCAA.

Respondents Brief — West Virginia, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · May 28, 2021

. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the Clean Air Act, did Congress constitutionally authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant rules—including those capable of reshaping the … Air Regulatory Grp. v.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Sunoco LP, et al., Petitioners v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Apr 1, 2024

The Clean Air Act recognizes “the primary responsibility” of States to prevent and control “air pollution … at its source.” 42 U.S.C. §7401(a)(3). … Air Act and Clean Water Act.

Application — In Re United States, et al., Applicants

Supreme Court brief · Application · Oct 18, 2018

Air Act, Fed. … Fact EPA 7/30/2008 Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 73 Fed.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Palmieri v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (No. 06-1135)

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2006

of 1976", or Title V of Public Law 101-549, the "Clean Air Act", and where the issuance of a permit in such a manner is contrary to such authorization. 4. … (3) Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments, 42 USC 7401 et seq., 1990 for any air pollution control source under ECL article 19 subject to the following Federal requirements: (i) prevention of significant

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari — Novo Industrial Corp. v. Standard Screw Co.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for a Writ of Certiorari · 1967

There is also always the question as to whether the valve is properly cleaned: and if a poor job is done and a partly plugged valve is reinstalled on the car the air pollution program would suffer.” … No Patent claim, coming earlier through the wok of a single inventor, should be held invalid on the basis of a later work by three others acting in concert.

Application — Jonathan Dunn, Applicant v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary of Defense, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Application · Apr 11, 2022

This Court has jurisdiction over this request for interim injunctive relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). … The court also found “that it’s not always feasible to get the testing done . . . within the time period required” for deployment. App. 43a.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Arkansas v. Oklahoma

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1992

These two unprecedented Clean Water Act rulings are a radical departure from past administrative and judicial interpretations of the Act. … of this Court’s construction of the Clean Water Act in International Paper Co. v.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al., Petitioners v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · May 21, 2026

The federal common law as it existed before the Clean Air Act would have preempted the state tort claims in this case. … AEP did not hold that the Clean Air Act revived the state causes of action that earlier federal law had preempted.

Petition — Manchester Environmental Coalition v. Environmental Protection Agency

Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1982

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq., violates §7607(f) of the Act. … Similarly, the legislative history of the Clean Air Act mandates an award of attorney's fees in this supra, and Newman v. Piggie Park, supra.

Appendix — Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1975

It comments on drugs. Those are both important issues right now. It comments on profanity. It comments on the Vietnam War especially. … What about the ecology comments ‘ [247] in the play, what did you derive from them? A Well, there is a lot of facts in the ecology scene, pure air and things like that.

Appendix — Train v. City of New York

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1975

Senator Muskie is chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution which reported S. 2770, the Senate version of the Act. … If we want clean water. we have to pav for clean water.

Opposition — Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Opposition · 1978

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the special judicial review provisions of Section 37(b) of the Clean Air Act bar a defendant in a criminal (1) 2 enforcement action from challenging the emission standard … To carry out his duties under Section | 12 of the Clean Air Act, as added, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7, to protect the public health from hazardous air pollutants, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Carlo Bianchi & Co. v. United States

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1965

erned by the ‘‘Wunderlich Act,’’? … McGavock also expressed the view that : if the tunnel had been sealed up to prevent outside air from ° _ entering during the period after the cleaning up, much of ' cfhhe expansion causing the rockfall

Reply Brief — Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer

Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 2005

Regulations: Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. ............. 6 Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. .......... 6 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), gh ae eT errr rere ry … First, as explained in the petition (Pet. 23-24), RCRA contains no such statutory exclusion for activities potentially subject to Clean Air Act air emissions controls.

Appendix — Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana

Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1981

See “The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977: A Selective Legislative Analysis”, 13 Land and Water L.R. 747, pp. 800-812. … MELOY District Judge 88a Clean Air Act Amendments of of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-95 § 125, 42 U.S.C. § 7425 § 7425.

Record and brief — Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc.

Supreme Court brief · Record and brief · 2009

In American Trucking, we held that the text of §109 of the Clean Air Act, “inter- preted in its statutory and historical context ... unambi- guously bars cost considerations’ in setting air quality … In that case, the Court reviewed the EPA’s claim that §109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Federal Express Corp. v. Fujitsu Ltd.

Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2001

However, because the bags themselves were coated with the oily residue, they could not be brought into a clean room for inspection, as the residue itself would contaminate the clean room. … The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by river performed outside an airport.

Amicus Curiae Brief — Department of the Interior v. South Dakota

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1996

Welfare Act of 1968 os cnsncasncosacoen 6 Indian Tribal Justice Act 25 U.S.C. 3601, 3602, 3611, 3612, 3613, 3614, 3621, ERAS OEE AES TRS A Cn EN 6 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 ee senipaneninesenaietebennboneis … , 25 U.S.C. 450f (1995) (amending the Indian Self Determination Act to provide devolution of federal program responsibilities and federal funding to several tribal governments); Clean Air Act Amendments

Amicus Curiae Brief — Michael Sackett, et ux., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Apr 14, 2022

Rep. 10190 (2006) ..................................................... 14, 15 Damien Schiff, Keeping the Clean Water Act Cooperatertively Federal—Or, Why the Clean Water Act Does Not Directly Regulate … Rev. 923, 925 (1999); see also Damien Schiff, Keeping the Clean Water Act Cooperatertively Federal—Or, Why the Clean Water Act Does Not Directly Regulate Groundwater Pollution, 42 Wm. & Mary Envtl.