This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The US Supreme Court ruled Monday in Guam v. United States that a case against the US for causing toxic waste pollution in Guam may proceed. This case originated from a lawsuit by Guam against the US accusing the Navy of causing the contamination at the Ordot Dump. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Guam.
Navy and the territory of Guam that turns on interpretation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as CERCLA or the Superfund statute. Guam is a 30-mile-long island located in the Pacific Ocean 3,800 miles west of Hawaii. Factual and legal background. United States.
Share Monday’s argument in Guam v. United States featured sharply different interpretations of the contribution provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, also known as CERCLA or the Superfund statute. Guam is appealing a ruling by the U.S. But the U.S.
But local governments operate under varying legal parameters, and the Ninth Circuit decision has different implications for different building electrification requirements depending on location, legal landscape, and policy approach. This post is not expressing a legal opinion on Ithaca’s code.) Clean Air Act, not EPCA.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that enjoined the enforcement of a Guam law requiring in-person consultations before obtaining an abortion. The case is an appeal from the US District Court for the District of Guam. Circuit Judge Kenneth K.
Share Just four weeks after hearing oral argument, the Supreme Court on Monday issued a refreshingly clear, unanimous decision in Guam v. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that Guam could seek contribution from the U.S. United States. or a state].”.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content