| County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 6, 2019 Decided April 23, 2020 | |
| Full case name | County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, et al. |
| Docket no. | 18-260 |
| Citations | 590 U.S. ___ (more) 140 S. Ct. 1462; 206 L. Ed. 2d 640 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Haw. Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, No. 1:12-cv-00198, 24 F. Supp. 3d 980 (D. Haw. 2014); affirmed, 881 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2018); rehearing en banc denied, 886 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2018); cert. granted, 139 S.Ct. 1164 (2019). |
| Holding | |
| The statutory provisions at issue require a permit when there is a direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh |
| Concurrence | Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Gorsuch |
| Dissent | Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Clean Water Act | |
County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving pollution discharges under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case asked whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants that originate from a non-point source can be traced to reach navigable waters through mechanisms such as groundwater transport. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that such non-point discharges require a permit when they are the "functional equivalent of a direct discharge", a new test defined by the ruling. The decision vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case with instructions to apply the new standard to the lower courts with cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).