Clinchfield Coal Co. v. DOI, 85-2206
| Decision Date | 27 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-2206,85-2206 |
| Citation | 802 F.2d 102 |
| Parties | , 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,240 CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, Appellee, v. DOI, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Elizabeth S. Tonkin, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty. (John Perry Alderman, U.S. Atty., F. Henry Habicht, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Martin W. Matzen, Anne S. Almy & Kathleen P. Dewey, U.S. Dept. of Justice on brief), for appellant.
John R. Woodrum (Ronald E. Meisburg, Smith, Heenan & Althen, Elsey A. Harris, III, Mullins, Keuling-Stout, Thomason & Harris, Fletcher A. Cooke, Asst. Gen. Counsel Clinchfield Coal Co. on brief), for appellee.
Before SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges and HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge.
The district court enjoined the Secretary of Interior from enforcing a notice of violation issued pursuant to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 et seq., pending the completion of administrative remedies. In granting the injunction under 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1276(c), the district court found that there was a substantial likelihood that Clinchfield Coal Company would prevail on the merits because the district court found that the Secretary's national regulation, 30 C.F.R. Sec. 843.12(a)(2) exceeded the Secretary's statutory authority. The Secretary appeals, claiming that the district court did not have jurisdiction to review the validity of the regulations. We agree.
The SMCRA, at 30 U.S.C. Sec. 1276(a)(1), provides for judicial review of the Secretary's rule-making actions as follows:
Any action by the Secretary promulgating national rules or regulations ... shall be subject to judicial review in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In Commonwealth of Virginia v. Watt, 741 F.2d 37 (4th Cir.1984), we found that an attack on administrative action taken in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's regulations under SMCRA was an attack on the regulations themselves and may be heard only in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In Tug Valley Recovery Center v. Watt, 703 F.2d 796 (4th Cir.1983), we concluded that a district court in the Fourth Circuit lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over any action that was tantamount to an attack on a federal regulation issued under SMCRA.
In reaching the decision to issue the temporary injunction in the present case, the district court found that the regulation set forth in 30 C.F.R. Sec....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pittston Co. v. Lujan
...1276(a)(1) (emphasis added). Three Fourth Circuit opinions have addressed jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(1). Clinchfield Coal Co. v. DOI, 802 F.2d 102 (4th Cir.1986); Commonwealth of Virginia v. Watt, 741 F.2d 37 (4th Cir.1984); and Tug Valley Recovery Center v. Watt, 703 F.2d 796 (......
-
National Min. Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of Interior
...when state regulatory authority explicitly authorized ditch), rev'd for lack of jurisdiction sub nom. Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Department of the Interior, 802 F.2d 102 (4th Cir.1986); Willowbrook Mining Co., 108 I.B.L.A. 303 (1989); Harman Mining Corp., 110 I.B.L.A. 98 (1989). The Associatio......
-
Ballmer v. Babbitt
...66 F.3d 714, 715 (4th Cir.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1417, 134 L.Ed.2d 542 (1996); Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Department of the Interior, 802 F.2d 102 (4th Cir.1986); Commonwealth of Virginia v. Watt, 741 F.2d 37, 40-41 (4th Cir.1984), cert. dismissed, 469 U.S. 1198, 105 S.Ct......
- Impounded, In re