Often we are successful in attaining our clients’ goals without litigation, but we also have significant litigation experience. A list of Jill Grant’s environmental cases follows:
• South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist. v. EPA, No. 15-71600 (9th Cir.) (settlement reached affirming EPA’s decision to designate a tribe’s reservation as its own Air Quality Planning Area under the CAA).
• Oklahoma Dept. of Env. Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (state challenge to scope of Indian country subject to EPA’s New Source Review Rule under the Clean Air Act).
• Felix v. Pic-N-Run, No. CV 09-8015 (D. Ariz. May 5, 2010) (finding lack of jurisdiction over tribe in case seeking to impose liability for leaking USTs).
• Michigan v. EPA, 268 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 970 (2002) (requiring EPA to make determinations of Indian country under CAA by notice and comment proceedings).
• Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied sub nom. Michigan v. EPA, 530 U.S. 970 (2001) (upholding Tribal Authority Rule under the Clean Air Act and recognizing statutory delegation to tribes of authority over air quality within the reservation, including on trust lands).
• HRI, Inc. v. EPA, 198 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000), rev’d on rehearing en banc, 608 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2010) (determining jurisdiction over in-situ uranium mine under the underground injection provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act).
• Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA, 154 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (petitions for review of rule setting routes over Grand Canyon not ripe because FAA changed its position during and immediately after oral argument).
• Del. Valley Citizens Council v. Davis, 932 F.2d 256 (3d Cir. 1991) (suit against state environmental agency under Clean Air Act).
• United States v. Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc., 911 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1990) (upholding mandatory penalties under Clean Air Act).
• Center for Nuclear Responsibility v. NRC, 781 F.2d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (upholding NRC decision regarding nuclear power plant license).
Ms. Grant also has prepared and filed amicus curiae briefs in numerous cases to represent the interests of our clients. These amicus filings often have proved critical to the outcome of the litigation, and include the following:
• BP America Production Co. v. Burton, 549 U.S. 84 (2006) (requiring companies to pay additional royalties on tribal and federal leases by finding that six-year statute of limitations did not apply to orders to pay).
• United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (breach of trust case).
• Dept. of the Interior v. South Dakota, 519 U.S. 919 (1996) (vacating and remanding 8th Circuit decision finding IRA § 5 unconstitutional).
• EXC, Inc. v. Jensen, No. 12-16958 (9th Cir.) (reply brief filed August 23, 2013 decision pending) (scope of tribe’s adjudicatory jurisdiction over traffic accident caused by tour bus).
• United States v. Arrieta, 436 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2006) (affirming Indian country status of fee lands within Pueblo land grants).
• Amoco v. Watson, 410 F.3d 722 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (upholding federal government’s determination that oil and gas producers owed additional royalties to federal government and to tribes).
• Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. v. Dept. Of Interior, 21 F. Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 1998) (affirming application of dual accounting requirement under Indian natural gas leases).
• Baldwin v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., No. CH-CV-333-09 (Chinle Dist. Ct. Sept. 24, 2010) (denying insurance company’s motion to dismiss a claim for payment of cleanup costs due to releases of gasoline from storage tanks; case is still pending).
• State v. Romero, 140 N.M. 299 (2006) (upholding tribal jurisdiction over fee land within Pueblo land grants).
Some of Ms. Grant’s cases before administrative tribunals are listed under the Practice Area tab for Administrative Law.