Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
2013 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers.[1][2] The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.
Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. NRDC | |
---|---|
Argued December 4, 2012 Decided January 8, 2013 | |
Full case name | Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. National Resources Defense Council, et al. |
Docket no. | 11-460 |
Citations | 568 U.S. 78 (more) 133 S. Ct. 710; 184 L. Ed. 2d 547; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 597; 75 ERC 1641; 81 U.S.L.W. 4031 |
Case history | |
Prior | 673 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2011) rehearing denied; 636 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 567 U.S. 933 (2012). |
Subsequent | Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Cty. of L.A., 725 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2013); cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1100 (2014); on remand, No. 2:08-cv-01467 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015); reversed, 840 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2016). |
Holding | |
The flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Concurrence | Alito (in judgment) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. art. III; Clean Water Act |