Under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), the EPA issues permits limiting the pollutants that regulated entities can discharge into federal waters. Those permits generally operate either by establishing effluent limitations for certain pollutants or by imposing narrative requirements, like requiring the permittee to use “best practices” to limit pollution. But in recent years, the EPA has sometimes taken a third approach, issuing results-oriented permits that
Read More City and County of San Francisco v. EPA (No. 23-753)Statutory Interpretation
Thompson v. United States (No. 23-1095)
William Blake once observed that “a truth that’s told with bad intent, beats all the lies you can invent.” It turns out the Supreme Court agrees, at least for escaping liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1014. In Thompson v. United States (No. 23-1095), a unanimous court held that this statute criminalizes only false statements and not statements that are misleading but literally true.
Patrick…
Read More Thompson v. United States (No. 23-1095)Delligatti v. United States (No. 23-825)
Federal law provides a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for a person who uses or carries a firearm during a “crime of violence.” In Delligatti v. United States (No. 23-825), the Supreme Court addressed whether a crime of omission involves the “use” of physical force, thus subjecting a defendant to the sentencing enhancement. A 7-2 Court held that it does.
Salvatore Delligatti is…
Read More Delligatti v. United States (No. 23-825)Bufkin v. Collins (No. 23-713)
When a veteran seeks disability benefits, federal law provides that ties go to the applicant. But if the Veterans Administration decides it’s not a tie—that is, the preponderance of the evidence comes out against the veteran—then it has no occasion to apply this tiebreaking rule. That leads to a question only an appellate lawyer would ask: What standard of review applies to the VA’s determination…
Read More Bufkin v. Collins (No. 23-713)Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath (No. 23-1127)
In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Heath (No. 23-1127), the Supreme Court addressed whether the Government “provide[s]” money to a program that subsidizes telecommunications services for schools and libraries through a surcharge imposed on telecom carriers, meaning that a telecom company’s allegedly inflated claim for these subsidies is potentially subject to liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Writing for a…
Read More Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath (No. 23-1127)Lackey v. Stinnie (No. 23-621)
In Lackey v. Stinnie (No. 23-621), the Supreme Court addressed a question that had divided the circuits: If a plaintiff sues under Section 1983 and obtains a preliminary injunction, but subsequent events moot the suit before the district court can make that temporary relief permanent, is the plaintiff a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees under Section 1988(b)? Rejecting the approach favored by most…
Read More Lackey v. Stinnie (No. 23-621)