| 词条 | Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. |ArgueDate=March 30 |ArgueYear=2016 |DecideDate=May 31 |DecideYear=2016 |FullName=United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., et al. |USVol=578 |USPage=___ |ParallelCitations=136 S. Ct. 1807; 195 L. Ed. 2d 77 |Docket=15–290 |OralArgument=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-290 |OpinionAnnouncement=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-290_6k37.pdf |Prior=Motion to dismiss granted, 963 F. Supp. 2d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130802923 868] (D. Minn. 2013); reversed, 782 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20150410105 994] (8th Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 615 (2015). |Procedural= |Subsequent= |Holding= |SCOTUS=2016 |Majority=Roberts |JoinMajority=Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan |Concurrence=Kennedy |JoinConcurrence=Thomas, Alito |Concurrence2=Kagan |Concurrence3=Ginsburg (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |Dissent2= |JoinDissent2= |LawsApplied= Administrative Procedure Act, {{USC|5|704}} }}Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Clean Water Act jurisdictional determination issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because jurisdictional determinations constitute "final agency action".[1] BackgroundThe Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into "waters of the United States" without a valid permit.[2] Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether property contains waters of the United States, the United States Army Corps of Engineers issues jurisdictional determinations (on a case-by-case basis) that specify whether property contains waters of the United States.[3] In this case, the United States Army Corps of Engineers issued a jurisdictional determination, which stated that property owned by peat mine operators in Marshall County, Minnesota included waters of the United States because it contained wetlands that "had a 'significant nexus' to the Red River of the North".[4] The mine operators filed suit to challenge the Corps's jurisdictional determination under the Administrative Procedure Act, but the district court ruled that it could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction because the jurisdictional determination did not constitute "final agency action".[5] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's ruling,[6] and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the case.[7] Opinion of the CourtIn a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court rejected The Corps’ contentions that the jurisdictional determination “is not ”final agency action” and that, even if it were, there are adequate alternatives for challenging it in court."[8] Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, where he argued that "the Court is right to construe a [jurisdictional determination] as binding in light of the fact that in many instances it will have a significant bearing on whether the Clean Water Act comports with due process."[9] Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which she argued that jurisdictional determinations are reviewable because "legal consequences will flow" from the Corps' determinations.[10] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment in which she argued that there was nothing tentative or informal about jurisdictional determinations, and that the Corps' determinations have "an immediate and practical impact."[11] See also
References{{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}1. ^{{ussc|name=Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.|volume=578|year=|docket=15-290}}, slip op. at 1, 5 (2016). 2. ^33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(7), 1362(12). 3. ^Hawkes, slip op. at 2-3 (citing 33 CFR § 331.2). 4. ^Hawkes, slip op. at 3-4. 5. ^{{cite court |litigants=Hawkes Co. v. Army Corps of Engineers |vol=963 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=868 |pinpoint= |court=D. Minn. |date=2013 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130802923 |accessdate=2018-01-03 |quote=}} 6. ^{{cite court |litigants=Hawkes Co. v. Army Corps of Engineers |vol=782 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=994 |pinpoint= |court=8th Cir. |date=2015 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20150410105 |accessdate=2018-01-03 |quote=}} 7. ^Hawkes, slip op. at 4-5. 8. ^Hawkes, slip op. at 5-10. 9. ^Hawkes, slip op. at 2 (Kennedy, J., concurring). 10. ^Hawkes, slip op. at 1 (Kagan, J., concurring) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 11. ^Hawkes, slip op. at 1 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (citing {{ussc|name=Frozen Food Express v. United States|link=|volume=351|page=40|pin=44|year=1956}}) (internal quotations omitted). External links
| case = Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., {{ussc|578|___|2016|el=no}} | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/15-290/ | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-290 | other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) | other_url1 =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-290_6k37.pdf 3 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court|2016 in United States case law |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。