National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense (16-299)

argument 16-299

National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense

Supreme Court of the United States 57 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central jurisdictional question about the Clean Water Act in this case?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case sixteen two hundred ninety nine, the National Association of Manufacturers versus uh Department of Defense et al. Mr Bishop.

Unknown 0:10

Mr Chief Justice, may it please the Court, the Clean Water Act provides for judicial review in the courts of appeals of seven categories of action by the EPA administrator. And those are defined narrowly and precisely in section thirteen sixty nine B one of the Act. Had Congress meant for Courts of Appeals to review all national or definitional rules It would have said so, as it did in the Clean Air Act, instead of listing a handful of particular EPA actions down to the statutory subsection. Our textual approach to subsections B one and E B one E and F results in a comparatively clear jurisdictional rule that will eliminate many duplicative filings What would happen? If Two questions were presented. The first involves whether th the water in question fits within waters of the United States.

Unknown 1:11

That's a preliminary question. And then there's a challenge to a grant a grant uh or denial of a per permit. If you have those two combined, where do they go? Well, uh I I I think uh Justice Ginsburg that the the the court has never answered that question. In footnote fourteen of the Dupont case. uh which uh involved um uh thirteen uh oh four B guidelines This court suggested that when you have a challenge that includes are actions covered by EOF and that are not covered by EOF that it may be possible to exercise ancillary jurisdiction uh over the question not not covered. Um of course the B two preclusion should not apply in that case. But uh you know in any event uh the challenge here is to the Wotus rule by itself.

John G. Roberts 2:18

One of the things putting us I mean obviously uh Your main emphasis is of course on the statutory language, but one of the consequences that um Your opponent points out is that if you're correct and these actions are brought in the district court Each of the district courts will have to review the entire administrative record. and presumably you could have dozens of the district courts engaged in that same activity And then it would have to be done all over again when you get to the Court of Appeals.

Unknown 2:48

Well uh I mean I think their argument is that that is inefficient, right? But

John G. Roberts 2:53

their rule Well, you'll agree that it's inefficient, won't you?

Unknown 2:56

Well their their rule I mean uh their rule uh has its own efficiency problem, which is that it's not clear. And what you end up with under a rule that isn't clear is extremely inefficient. Um and you know here we have this rule was promulgated in June of twenty fifteen. We have what about my efficiency concern? Well you I think w uh the the point I'm trying to make there, Chief Justice is just that there are inefficiencies on both sides. This court said in SACIT that efficiency does not conquer all. We would like to litigate these issues in the district court because we think that uh going through the district courts and the courts of appeals will produce uh more accurate decision making and will tee the case up better

Unknown 3:40

for this court's. But they are

John G. Roberts 3:42

I I take it that means they are right that that's would that's what this would entail.

Unknown 3:48

The

John G. Roberts 3:48

district court to do the correct job would have to look at the whole record and as many district courts as these actions have been brought would have to do that. And then the Court of Appeals would do it again all over.

Unknown 3:59

That's true. And this has been filed in eleven district courts. I would say as a practical matter, that what happens in these cases once the initial skirmishing is over is that parties on different sides uh tend to get together uh and dismiss certain cases and um then join the others. If you water transfer case that is what happened for example.

Elena Kagan 4:26

If we were to say This needs to go to district court. why would parties run to the courthouse? They would either wait for an enforcement proceeding Or wait for a um uh denial of a permit or just wait and the waiting would then result in the inefficiencies that the Chief Justice just pointed to.