October Term 2008 · Docket 07-984
Does the Clean Water Act require EPA permits for mine tailings discharged into wetlands?
Coeur Alaska seeks to bypass EPA effluent limits by classifying mine tailings as fill material under Army Corps jurisdiction.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Waldo argued Congress enacted an unqualified prohibition against operating new sources in violation of performance standards.
General Garre stated the expert agencies concluded mine tailings should be permitted by the Army Corps.
Mr. Olson emphasized Congress created two distinct, mutually exclusive permitting regimes for fill material and pollutants.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-33
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether mine tailings constitute fill material or pollutants. Coeur Alaska argues the Army Corps regulates this discharge. Conservation groups argue the EPA must enforce strict effluent limits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-51
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 12, 2009.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-23
What each side wants
Coeur Alaska wants the Army Corps to regulate the discharge as fill material.
Conservation groups want the EPA to enforce strict effluent limits on the discharge.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-51
What each side says
Coeur Alaska argues Congress created distinct permitting regimes for fill material and pollutants.
Conservation groups argue the discharge destroys the natural life of the water body.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-51
What the justices asked
Justice Souter asked if the natural life of the water body is destroyed during discharge.
Justice Kennedy asked if a single pipe discharge can be both fill and pollutant.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-33
Why it matters
This case determines which federal agency regulates mine tailings discharged into wetlands. The outcome defines the scope of EPA effluent limits versus Army Corps fill material rules. It sets the standard for environmental protection of natural water bodies during mining operations.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-51
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 39-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 7-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-33
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 49-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 49-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 27-51 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 27-51
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.