CITIZEN SUIT WATCH: U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Review Ninth Circuit Decision Requiring Clean Water Act Permits for Forest Roads
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.25.12
On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted two petitions for writs of certiorari to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (2011). The Ninth Circuit had ruled that storm water runoff from forest roads is subject to permitting under Clean Water Act section 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. The Ninth Circuit rejected the longstanding position of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") that section 402 permits were not required for such runoff under the Agency's 1976 Silvicultural Rule – a position that EPA reaffirmed in its 1990 stormwater regulations implementing the 1987 amendments to the statute. (For a more detailed discussion of the Ninth Circuit's decision, click here)
Crowell & Moring filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Alliance of Forest Owners, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and eleven other state and national trade associations all representing forest landowners (together, "Amici";) in support of the two petitions, focusing on the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdictional analysis, in addition to the court’s analysis of the merits under the Clean Water Act. (For a more detailed discussion of the Amici brief, click here.)
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26


