1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CITIZEN SUIT WATCH: U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Review Ninth Circuit Decision Requiring Clean Water Act Permits for Forest Roads

CITIZEN SUIT WATCH: U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Review Ninth Circuit Decision Requiring Clean Water Act Permits for Forest Roads

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.25.12

On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted two petitions for writs of certiorari to review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (2011). The Ninth Circuit had ruled that storm water runoff from forest roads is subject to permitting under Clean Water Act section 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. The Ninth Circuit rejected the longstanding position of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") that section 402 permits were not required for such runoff under the Agency's 1976 Silvicultural Rule – a position that EPA reaffirmed in its 1990 stormwater regulations implementing the 1987 amendments to the statute. (For a more detailed discussion of the Ninth Circuit's decision, click here)

Crowell & Moring filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Alliance of Forest Owners, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and eleven other state and national trade associations all representing forest landowners (together, "Amici";) in support of the two petitions, focusing on the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdictional analysis, in addition to the court’s analysis of the merits under the Clean Water Act. (For a more detailed discussion of the Amici brief, click here.)

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....