National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense

National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case.[1] At issue is which court will hear cases that define the term Waters of the United States for the purpose of rule making, to the exclusion of the states.[2] The case is the successor to North Dakota v. EPA, among others.

National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense
Argued October 11, 2017
Decided January 22, 2018
Full case nameNational Association of Manufacturers, Petitioner v. Department of Defense, et al.
Docket no.16-299
Citations583 U.S. ___ (more)
138 S. Ct. 617; 199 L. Ed. 2d 501
Case history
PriorMurray Energy Corp. v. Department of Defense, 817 F.3d 261 (6th Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 811 (2017).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinion
MajoritySotomayor, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Clean Water Act

Facts and prior history

edit

The United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency engaged in rule making to define Waters of the United States for the purpose of promulgating other environmental rules. The State of North Dakota, joined by other states, challenged the definition. The states won an injunction which was subsequently challenged in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This case will settle the matter of jurisdiction.

The Court heard oral arguments on October 11, 2017.

Opinion of the Court

edit

The Court issued an opinion on January 22, 2018.[3] Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.

References

edit
  1. ^ "Petition" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved September 21, 2017.
  2. ^ Cama, Timothy (January 13, 2017). "Supreme Court to hear case concerning Obama water rule". The Hill. Retrieved September 22, 2017.
  3. ^ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-299_8nk0.pdf [bare URL PDF]
edit