American Mining Cong. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng., Civil Action No. 93-1754 SSH.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtStanley S. Harris
Citation962 F.Supp. 2
PartiesAMERICAN MINING CONGRESS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al., Defendants, and National Wildlife Federation, et al., Defendant-intervenors.
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 93-1754 SSH.
Decision Date02 April 1997
962 F.Supp. 2
AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, et al., Defendants,
and
National Wildlife Federation, et al., Defendant-intervenors.
Civil Action No. 93-1754 SSH.
United States District Court, D. Columbia.
April 2, 1997.

Page 3

Albert Jeremiah Beveridge, III, David Gary Isaacs, Thomas Charles Jackson, Virginia Swisshelm Albrecht, Beveridge & Diamond, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Alice Love Mattice, Environment & Natural Resources Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Army Corps of Engineers.

Howard I. Fox, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Washington, DC, for National Wildlife — intervenor/defendant.

Ronald A. Zumbrun, Pacific Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, for Fairness to Land-owners, Pacific Legal Foundation Cmte. Nat'l Assoc. of Flood & Stormwater Mgt. — movant.

Paul Douglas Kamenar, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, amicus.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

STANLEY S. HARRIS, District Judge.


This case now is before the Court on defendants' motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), plaintiffs' opposition and supplement thereto, and defendants' reply. The Court also has considered memoranda in opposition to defendants' motion filed by amici: one filed by the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management, and another by a coalition of the Nationwide Public Projects Coalition, the City of Colorado Springs Colorado, and the New England Water Works Association; Upon careful consideration of the entire record, defendants' motion is denied.

Background

This action arises from a challenge to a Clean Water Act ("CWA" or the "Act"), 33 U.S.C. § 1344, rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. Under that rule, which is commonly referred to as the Tulloch rule, the agencies considered the "incidental fall-back" that accompanies dredging and land-clearing activities to be a "discharge" necessitating a permit under § 404 of the Act.1 33 C.F.R. § 323.2(d)(1)(iii) and 40 C.F.R. § 232.2(1)(iii).

Page 4

Plaintiffs filed the instant action, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.2 injunctive relief. In a January 23, 1997, Opinion, 951 F.Supp. 267, the Court concluded "that the Tulloch rule exceeds the scope of the agencies' statutory authority and, accordingly, declares it invalid and sets it aside." 951 F.Supp. at 278. In the accompanying Judgment, the Court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs and stated that "the so-called Tulloch rule is declared invalid and set aside, and henceforth is not to be applied or enforced by the Corps of Engineers or the Environmental Protection Agency." The government subsequently filed the instant motion, asking the Court to alter or amend the injunctive relief to apply only to plaintiffs.3

Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a court to amend a judgment when a party seeking relief demonstrates that there "is an `intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or to prevent manifest injustice.'" Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996) (citations omitted).

The government contends that the specific injunctive relief granted by the Court — i.e., that the "invalid and set aside" rule should no longer be "applied or enforced" — is overbroad because it prohibits any future application of the Tulloch rule. The government contends that any relief granted by the Court should be restricted to "plaintiff trade associations and their members as of the date of filing of the complaint and entry of judgment." Defs.' Proposed Order at 1.

The Court rejects defendants' proposal to limit relief solely to members of the plaintiff associations. "When a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated — not that their application to the individual petitioners is proscribed." Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F.2d 484, 495 n. 21 (D.C.Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1056, 110 S.Ct. 865, 107 L.Ed.2d 949 (1990); see also Lujan v. National...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Richardson v. Dist. Of D.C., Civil Action No. 09-01856 (HHK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • May 14, 2010
    ...process challenges). Similarly, dating back to 1997, this Court observed that Richardson received ample due process. See Richardson II, 962 F.Supp. at 2, n. 2.9 Furthermore, although Richardson adds a passing reference to the Sixth Amendment in relation to his due process claim, see Compl. ......
1 cases
  • Richardson v. Dist. Of D.C., Civil Action No. 09-01856 (HHK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • May 14, 2010
    ...process challenges). Similarly, dating back to 1997, this Court observed that Richardson received ample due process. See Richardson II, 962 F.Supp. at 2, n. 2.9 Furthermore, although Richardson adds a passing reference to the Sixth Amendment in relation to his due process claim, see Compl. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT