<div class='mailmunch-forms-before-post' style='display: none !important;'></div><p>Two cases on the docket today. The first is &#8211;</p>
<p>In June 2015, respondent agencies promulgated a final rule defining the term &#8220;the waters of the United States&#8221; and hence the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The National Association of Manufacturers challenged that rule in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act. State, municipal, industry, and environmental challenges likewise filed APA suits, but in addition filed protective petitions for review in the courts of appeals, citing uncertainty about whether the rule challenge falls under the CWA&#8217;s judicial review provision, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(l).</p><script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script> 
<ins class="adsbygoogle" 
 style="display:block; text-align:center;" 
 data-ad-layout="in-article" 
 data-ad-format="fluid" 
 data-ad-client="ca-pub-5175198302130341" 
 data-ad-slot="9182933377"></ins> 
<script> 
 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); 
</script><div class='mailmunch-forms-in-post-middle' style='display: none !important;'></div>
<table id="docketinfo" class="Basic-Table table">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="InfoTitle" colspan="2"><span class="DocketInfoTitle">No. 16-299<br />
</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200">Title:</td>
<td><span class="title">National Association of Manufacturers, Petitioner<br />
v.<br />
Department of Defense, et al.</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200">Docketed:</td>
<td>September 7, 2016</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200">Linked with 16A11, 17A146</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200">Lower Ct:</td>
<td>United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200"> Case Numbers:</td>
<td>(15-3751)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200"> Decision Date:</td>
<td>February 22, 2016</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200"> Rehearing Denied:</td>
<td>April 21, 2016</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DocketFiles/HTML/qp/16-00299qp.pdf">Questions Presented</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>This case presents the question this Court granted certiorari to resolve but ultimately left undecided, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013): Whether the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, categorically forecloses corporate liability &#8211; Can corporations be liable for terrorist activity using their services?</p>
<table id="docketinfo" class="Basic-Table table">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="InfoTitle" colspan="2"><span class="DocketInfoTitle">No. 16-499<br />
</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200">Title:</td>
<td><span class="title">Joseph Jesner, et al., Petitioners<br />
v.<br />
Arab Bank, PLC</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200">Docketed:</td>
<td>October 13, 2016</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200">Linked with 16A82</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200">Lower Ct:</td>
<td>United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200"> Case Numbers:</td>
<td>(13-3605, 13-3620, 13-3635, 13-4650, 13-4652)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200"> Decision Date:</td>
<td>December 8, 2015</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="200"> Rehearing Denied:</td>
<td>May 9, 2016</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/DocketFiles/HTML/qp/16-00499qp.pdf">Questions Presented</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</p><div class='mailmunch-forms-after-post' style='display: none !important;'></div></p><p class="wpsai_spacing_before_adsense"></p> 

On The Docket Today
