The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases today:

Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, No. 15-290:  Three mining companies sought a permit under the Clean Water Act seeking to discharge material onto wetlands located on their property.  The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants, but only into “the waters of the United States.”  Because it can be difficult to determine whether a piece of property includes waters of the United States, and given the serious consequences if it does, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will issue property owners an “approved jurisdictional determination” (approved “JD”) providing the federal agency’s definitive view as to whether the property falls within the Act.  Here, the respondent mining companies were issued an approved JD stating that the property contained “waters of the United States.”  Respondents sought review by filing suit in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).  The District Court dismissed, holding that the JD was not a “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court” as the APA requires.  The Eighth Circuit reversed.  Today, the Court affirmed, holding that an approved JD is final agency action judicially reviewable under the APA, 5 U.S.C. §704.

The Court's decision is available here.

Lynch v. Arizona, No. 15-8366:  Supreme Court precedent in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), and its progeny, dictates that due process entitles a capital defendant to inform the jury of his parole ineligibility when the defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and the only alternative to the death penalty available to the jury is life without parole.  Here, petitioner Shawn Patrick Lynch was convicted for first-degree murder and other offenses and sentenced to death.  The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s death sentence, recognizing that the State put Lynch’s dangerousness at issue, but holding that the failure to give the Simmons instruction regarding his ineligibility for parole was not error.  The Court today reversed in a per curiam opinion, holding that Simmons and its progeny establish Lynch’s right to inform his jury of the fact that parole was unavailable to him. 

The Court's decision is available here.

Johnson v. Lee, No. 15-789:  Under federal habeas review, the federal courts generally refuse to hear claims defaulted in state court according to adequate state procedural rules.  California, under its so-called “Dixon bar,” forecloses state collateral review on a claim that was not, but could have been raised first on direct appeal.  Here, respondent Donna Kay Lee raised new claims on federal habeas review that were not raised on direct appeal in California state court.  Those claims were dismissed by the District Court as procedurally defaulted.  On appeal, Lee challenged the Dixon bar’s adequacy for the first time, and the Ninth Circuit, after ordering a study of its application, held that the Dixon bar was inadequate.  Today, in a per curiam decision, the Court reversed, holding that the Dixon bar was an adequate procedural ground that was both firmly established and regularly followed.

The Court's decision is available here.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the following case today:

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States, ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15-513:  What standard governs the decision whether to dismiss a relator’s claim for violation of the False Claims Act’s seal requirement, 31 U.S.C. §3730(b)(2)?