County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
http://dbpedia.org/resource/County_of_Maui_v._Hawaii_Wildlife_Fund an entity of type: Thing
County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge", a new test defined by the ruling. The decision vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case with instructions to apply the new standard to the lower courts with cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency (
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, et al.
xsd:integer
60040749
xsd:integer
1103672074
rdf:langString
Thomas
rdf:langString
Alito
xsd:integer
18
rdf:langString
Gorsuch
rdf:langString
Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
rdf:langString
___
xsd:integer
590
xsd:gMonthDay
--11-06
xsd:integer
2019
rdf:langString
County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 590 U.S. ___
xsd:gMonthDay
--04-23
xsd:integer
2020
rdf:langString
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, et al.
rdf:langString
The statutory provisions at issue require a permit when there is a direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge.
rdf:langString
County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
rdf:langString
Breyer
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge", a new test defined by the ruling. The decision vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case with instructions to apply the new standard to the lower courts with cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
rdf:langString
Kavanaugh
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
25002
