County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 23, 2020 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- April 23, 2020
- Term
- October Term 2019
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 , 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus COUNTY OF MAUI, HAWAII v. HAWAII WILDLIFE FUND ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 18–260. Argued November 6, 2019—Decided April 23, 2020 The Clean Water Act forbids “any addition” of any pollutant from “any point source” to “navigable waters” without an appropriate permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). §§ 301(a), 502(12), 86 Stat. 844, 886. The Act defines “pollutant” broadly, §502(6); defines a “point source” as “ ‘any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance . . . from which pollutants are or may be discharged,’ ” including, e.g., any “ ‘container,’ ” “ ‘pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,’ ” or “ ‘well,’ ” §502(14); and defines the term “discharge of a pollutant” as “ ‘any ad- dition of any pollutant to navigable waters [including navigable streams, rivers, the ocean, or coastal waters] from any point source,’ ” §502(12). It then uses those terms in…
Excerpt of a 98,682-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.