§Why CasetextPricing

Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards et al v. Jewell

Brief / Memorandum in Support re Counter MOTION for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.

25 Cited authorities

  1. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

    463 U.S. 29 (1983)   Cited 6,656 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that " `settled course of behavior embodies the agency's informed judgment that, by pursuing that course, it will carry out the policies [of applicable statutes or regulations]'"

  2. Auer v. Robbins

    519 U.S. 452 (1997)   Cited 2,342 times   90 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a federal agency's interpretation of a regulation is controlling where it is not "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"

  3. Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council

    490 U.S. 360 (1989)   Cited 2,003 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts must defer to the "informed discretion" of federal agencies where the agencies’ decisions require "a high level of technical expertise" (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club , 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) )

  4. Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala

    512 U.S. 504 (1994)   Cited 1,278 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the agency’s interpretation must be given controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation"

  5. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

    462 U.S. 87 (1983)   Cited 1,151 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential" when examining an agency decision made "within its area of special expertise, at the frontiers of science"

  6. Alaska Dept. of E. C. P. A. v. E. P. A.

    540 U.S. 461 (2004)   Cited 540 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the EPA could overrule the state agency's construction of the term “best available control technology” in the Clean Air Act”

  7. Udall v. Tallman

    380 U.S. 1 (1965)   Cited 2,157 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when a regulation must be interpreted, “a court must necessarily look to the administrative construction of the regulation if the meaning of the words used is in doubt”

  8. Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

    567 U.S. 142 (2012)   Cited 336 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Auer "[d]eference is undoubtedly inappropriate. . . when the agency's interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

  9. Long Island Care at Home v. Coke

    551 U.S. 158 (2007)   Cited 332 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding authorization for Secretary of Labor to "prescribe necessary rules, regulations, and orders" provided the Department of Labor "with the power to fill [explicit statutory] gaps"

  10. Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co.

    325 U.S. 410 (1945)   Cited 1,245 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must comport with "the plain words of the regulation"

  11. Section 702 - Right of review

    5 U.S.C. § 702   Cited 7,097 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Granting judicial review of "agency action"

  12. Section 1201 - Congressional findings

    30 U.S.C. § 1201   Cited 418 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declaring that regulation of surface coal mining "is an appropriate and necessary means to minimize so far as practicable the adverse social, economic, and environmental effects of such mining operations"

  13. Section 1270 - Citizens suits

    30 U.S.C. § 1270   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Permitting citizen suit against United States or Secretary of Interior to compel compliance with SMCRA

  14. Section 1253 - State programs

    30 U.S.C. § 1253   Cited 148 times
    Requiring that a state SMCRA program establish "for the purposes of avoiding duplication, . . . a process for coordinating the review and issuance of permits for surface coal mining and reclamation operations with any other Federal or State permit process applicable to the proposed operations"

  15. Section 1276 - Judicial review

    30 U.S.C. § 1276   Cited 126 times
    Providing a 60-day period for review of certain Environmental Protection Agency actions related to coal mining

  16. Section 1271 - Enforcement

    30 U.S.C. § 1271   Cited 87 times
    Authorizing “the Secretary [of the Interior] or his authorized representative” to “order a cessation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations” upon finding certain environmental violations

  17. Section 4.1 - Scope of authority; applicable regulations

    43 C.F.R. § 4.1   Cited 73 times
    Noting that the IBLA issues the final decision for the Department of Interior

  18. Section 842.11 - [Effective 5/9/2024] Federal inspections and monitoring

    30 C.F.R. § 842.11   Cited 15 times

    (a) Authorized representatives of the Secretary shall conduct inspections of surface coal mining and reclamation operations as necessary- (1) To monitor and evaluate the administration of approved State programs. Such monitoring and evaluation inspections shall be conducted jointly with the State regulatory authority where practical and where the State so requests; (2) To develop or enforce Federal programs and Federal lands programs; (3) To enforce those requirements and permit conditions imposed

  19. Section 733.12 - [Effective until 5/9/2024] Early identification and corrective action to address State regulatory program issues

    30 C.F.R. § 733.12   Cited 4 times

    (a) When the Director identifies a State regulatory program issue, he or she should take action to make sure the identified State regulatory program issue is corrected as soon as possible in order to ensure that it does not escalate into an issue that would give the Director reason to believe that the State regulatory authority is not effectively implementing, administering, enforcing, or maintaining all or a portion of its State regulatory program. (1) The Director may become aware of State regulatory

  20. Section 842.12 - [Effective 5/9/2024] Requests for Federal inspections

    30 C.F.R. § 842.12   Cited 3 times

    (a) Any person may request a Federal inspection under § 842.11(b) by providing to an authorized representative a signed, written statement (or an oral report followed by a signed, written statement) setting forth information that, along with any other information the complainant chooses to provide, may give the authorized representative reason to believe that a violation, condition, or practice referred to in § 842.11(b)(1)(i) exists. In making this determination, the authorized representative will

  21. Section 843.15 - Informal public hearing

    30 C.F.R. § 843.15

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a notice of violation or cessation order which requires cessation of mining, expressly or by necessary implication, shall expire within 30 days after it is served unless an informal public hearing has been held within that time. The hearing shall be held at or reasonably close to the mine site so that it may be viewed during the hearing or at any other location acceptable to the Office and the person to whom the notice or order was