Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 30, 2016 Decided May 31, 2016 |
|
| Full case name | United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., et al. |
| Docket nos. | 15–290 |
| Citations | 578 U.S. ___ (more)
136 S. Ct. 1807; 195 L. Ed. 2d 77
|
| Prior history | Motion to dismiss granted, 963 F. Supp. 2d 868 (D. Minn. 2013); reversed, 782 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 615 (2015). |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion Announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by Thomas, Alito |
| Concurrence | Kagan |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) |
| Laws applied | |
| Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704 | |
Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.', 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled that decisions made by the United States Army Corps of Engineers about water can be challenged in court. These decisions are called "jurisdictional determinations." The Court said they are "final agency actions." This means people can ask a court to review them.
Contents
Why This Case Happened
This case was about how the government decides which waters are protected. It also looked at whether people can challenge those decisions.
The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act is a law that helps protect our nation's waters. It stops people from polluting "waters of the United States" without a special permit. These "waters" include rivers, lakes, and important wetlands.
The Army Corps' Job
It can be hard to know if a piece of land has "waters of the United States." So, the United States Army Corps of Engineers helps. They look at land and decide if it contains these protected waters. This decision is called a "jurisdictional determination." They make these decisions for each specific property.
The Peat Mine's Problem
In this case, a company called Hawkes Co. owned land in Marshall County, Minnesota. They operated a peat mine there. The Army Corps of Engineers looked at their land. The Corps decided it had wetlands connected to the Red River of the North. This meant the land contained "waters of the United States."
The mine operators disagreed with the Corps' decision. They wanted to challenge it in court. A lower court first said they could not challenge the decision. But a higher court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, said they could. So, the case went to the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court Decided
The Supreme Court had to decide if the Army Corps' "jurisdictional determinations" could be challenged in court.
The Main Decision
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main opinion for the Court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Army Corps. The Corps had argued that their decisions were not "final." They also said there were other ways to challenge them. But the Court said these decisions are final. This means they can be reviewed by a court.
Other Justices' Opinions
- Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a separate opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined him. He said the Court was right to call these decisions "binding." He felt they greatly affect whether the Clean Water Act is fair.
- Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a separate opinion. She agreed that these decisions can be reviewed. She said that "legal consequences will flow" from the Corps' decisions. This means the decisions have real effects.
- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote another opinion. She agreed with parts of the main decision. She said the Corps' decisions were not just ideas. They had "an immediate and practical impact" on people.
What This Means
The Supreme Court's decision in Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. was important. It made it clear that people can go to court to challenge decisions made by the Army Corps of Engineers about water. This helps ensure fairness and allows people to question government actions that affect their property.
