Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Tennessee Clean Water Network, et al. v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 17-6155 · judgment September 24, 2018


Dismissed · September 23, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 7% cert probability (95% interval 4%–11%)

Before the decision, about 1.6× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a petition citing three to ten dissents, and a dissent in the court below, and down for a state or local-government respondent.

Question presented

Absent authorization by permit, the Clean Water Act prohibits the “discharge of a pollutant,” defined as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12)(A). In County of Maui v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260 (U.S. filed Aug. 27, 2018) (Maui), the Court granted certiorari to determine “whether the [Clean Water Act] requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.” In this case, after a trial, the district court found that Respondent Tennessee Valley Authority is violating the Clean Water Act by adding toxic coal ash pollutants to the Cumberland River via a network of pipe-like conduits in the bedrock through which groundwater flows. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding as a matter of law that the Clean Water Act never applies to any pollutant that travels from a point source through groundwater before polluting navigable waters. The question presented is: Whether a defendant’s addition of pollutants to a navigable water from a point source via groundwater conduits may ever violate the Clean Water Act’s prohibition on the unpermitted “discharge of a pollutant.”

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Frank Sharp Holleman III
Southern Environmental Law Center

For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day

Case

Subject area
Economic Activity (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Sep 23 2019
    Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.2.
  2. Sep 04 2019
    Motion to dismiss under Rule 46.2 filed by counsel for petitioners.
  3. Jul 03 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
  4. Jun 14 2019
    Brief of respondent Tennessee Valley Authority in opposition filed.
  5. May 10 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 14, 2019.
  6. May 08 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 15, 2019 to June 14, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Apr 15 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 15, 2019)