Entergy Corp. v. EPA
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07-588 | 2d Cir. |
Dec 2, 2008 |
Apr 1, 2009 | 6-3 | Scalia | OT 2008 |
Issue: Whether the Clean Water Act permits the EPA to undergo a cost-benefit analysis in determining the most environmentally friendly technology at cooling water intake structures, and to regulate such structures at existing as well as new facilities.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on April 1, 2009.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Analysis: Reading the meaning of silence (Lyle Denniston, April 1, 2009)
- Oral Argument Recap: Entergy v. Riverkeeper (Max Schwartz, December 8, 2008)
- Court grants two cases, denies review on youth sentences (Lyle Denniston, April 14, 2008)
Briefs and Documents
Merit briefs
- Brief for Petitioner Utility Water Act Group (in 07-597)
- Brief for Petitioner Entergy Corporation and PSEG Fossil LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC(in 07-588 and 07-589)
- Brief for the Federal Parties as Respondents Supporting Petitioners
- Brief for Respondent Riverkeeper, Inc, (in 07-589 and 07-597 only)
- Brief for the States as Respondents
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Utility Water Act Group (in 07-597)
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Entergy Corporation and PSEG Fossil LLC and PSEG Nuclear LLC (in 07-588 and 07-589)
Amicus briefs
- Brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for State of Nebraska, et al. in Support of Petitioner(in 07-597 only)
- Brief for the American Chemistry Council, the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Iron and Steel Institute, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and the National Association of Manufacturers in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Association of Home Builders in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the American Petroleum Institute in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies and 33 Individual Economists in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Environmental Law Professors in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Frank Ackerman, Nathan Sivers Boyce, Peter Dorman, Eban Goodstein, Richard B. Howarth, Peter B. Meyer, Julie A. Nelson, Richard B. Norgaard, Thomas Michael Power, Kristen Sheeran, Benjamin K. Sovacool, and Lyuba Zarsky in Support of Respondent
- Brief for OMB Watch in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Clean Air Task Force & Clean Water Action-New England, et al., in Support of Respondent Riverkeeper, Inc., et al (in 07-589 and 07-597 only)
- Brief for Environment America and the Center for Biological Diversity in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the National Wildlife Federation and Sierra Club in Support of Respondent Riverkeeper, Inc., et al. (in 07-589 and 07-597 only)
- Brief for Voices of the Wetlands and Coastal Alliance on Plant Expansion in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Commercial Fisherman of America in Support of Respondent
Certiorari-Stage Documents
- Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (Entergy)
- Petition for certiorari (PSEG)
- Petition for certiorari (Utility Water Act Group)
- Brief in opposition (Federal Government)
- Brief in opposition (Riverkeeper)
- Brief in opposition (Rhode Island)
- Petitioner’s reply (Entergy)
- Petitioner’s reply (PSEG)
- Petitioner’s reply (Utility Water Act Group)
- Brief of Nuclear Energy Institute in support of the Petitioners
- Brief of Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition in support of Petitioners
- Brief of Nebraska in support of Utility Act Water Group
