- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA
Collection
Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA
Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA ↗
4:20-cv-00266United States District of Arizona (D. Ariz.)4 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
10/25/2021
Motion
Memorandum filed by business intervenor-defendants in support of motion for stay pending appeal.
–
04/12/2021
Decision
Motion to hold case in abeyance denied.
The federal district court for the District of Arizona denied EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ motion to hold in abeyance a case challenging the Trump administration’s rules defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The court was persuaded by the plaintiffs’ arguments that ongoing implementation of the Trump administration’s 2020 rule defining “waters of the United States” would cause damage to the plaintiffs “with an interest in the integrity of the nation’s waters” and that the federal defendants failed to establish “a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Therefore, “[b]ecause an abeyance of this litigation may result in damage to Plaintiffs or others and there is no indication that agency review of the challenged rule will be completed within a reasonable time, the Court does not find that an abeyance is appropriate.”
06/22/2020
Complaint
Complaint filed.
Two additional lawsuits challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA’s revised definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) contended that the adoption of the definition violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to consider climate change. The new lawsuits, this one in the District of Arizona and the <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/puget-soundkeeper-alliance-v-epa/">other</a> in the Western District of Washington, alleged that the agencies’ “decision to narrow the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act and to base the final rule on the permanence of surface flow in a typical year without considering the effects of climate change is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” At least two other lawsuits challenging the WOTUS rule—<a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/california-v-wheeler/">California v. Wheeler</a> and <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/conservation-law-foundation-v-epa-3/">Conservation Law Foundation v. EPA</a>—have also challenged this aspect of the definition.
Pasqua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA ↗
21-16791United States Federal Courts, United States Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.)1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary