National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007)
Primary Holding
The transfer of permitting authority under the Clean Water Act to state authorities does not require compliance with the consultation provisions of the Endangered Species Act, as Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA does not operate as an additional criterion for such transfers.
In the case of National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court decided that when states take over certain environmental permitting powers from the federal government, they don't have to follow extra rules about protecting endangered species. This matters because it means that states can manage permits more quickly without additional federal consultation, which can speed up construction and development projects. For consumers, this case is relevant if you're involved in building or developing land, as it can affect how quickly projects can get approved and started, though it may also raise concerns about environmental protections.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, the dispute arose from the interpretation of two federal environmental statutes: the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The CWA allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to transfer permitting authority for discharges into navigable waters to state authorities, provided that certain criteria are met. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with designated agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize endangered or threatened species. The central question was whether the consultation requirement under the ESA operates as an additional criterion for the transfer of permitting authority under the CWA. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA was required to consider the ESA's consultation requirement as a condition for transferring permitting authority to states. This decision was challenged by the National Association of Home Builders and the EPA, leading to the Supreme Court granting writs of certiorari to resolve the conflict regarding the interpretation of the two statutes. The background context includes the establishment of the CWA in 1972, which aimed to prevent pollution in the nation's waters, and the ESA enacted in 1973 to protect endangered species. The interplay between these two laws became contentious as environmental groups, including the Defenders of Wildlife, argued that the transfer of permitting authority without considering the ESA's requirements could endanger protected species. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the ESA's consultation requirement does not serve as a tenth criterion for the transfer of permitting authority, thereby reversing the Ninth Circuit's judgment.
Whether Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act operates as a criterion for the transfer of permitting authority under Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- April 17, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370 (2006)
Consumer WonOperating a dam to produce hydroelectricity may result in a discharge into navigable waters, thus requiring state certification under §401 of the Clean Water Act to ensure compliance with water protection laws.
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (2007)
Consumer WonThe Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must ensure that its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations regarding "modification" conform to the definitions established in the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and that any judicial review of EPA regulations must comply with the restrictions set forth in the Clean Air Act.
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that the Clean Water Act's jurisdiction over "waters of the United States" is limited to relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water, as well as wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to such waters, thereby rejecting the broader interpretation that included intermittent and ephemeral water bodies.
Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (2005)
Consumer LostCongress did not waive the United States' sovereign immunity for suits brought by third-party beneficiaries under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, and therefore, individuals who are not parties to a government contract cannot sue the United States for breach of that contract.