U.S. Code » Title 30 » Chapter CHAPTER 25— SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— CONTROL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SURFACE COAL MINING

30 U.S.C. § 1276

Judicial review

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 30 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Review by United States District Court; venue; filing of petition; time(1) Any action of the Secretary to approve or disapprove a State program or to prepare or promulgate a Federal program pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to judicial review by the United States District Court for the District which includes the capital of the State whose program is at issue. Any action by the Secretary promulgating national rules or regulations including standards pursuant to sections 1251, 1265, 1266, and 1273 of this title shall be subject to judicial review in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. Any other action constituting rulemaking by the Secretary shall be subject to judicial review only by the United States District Court for the District in which the surface coal mining operation is located. Any action subject to judicial review under this subsection shall be affirmed unless the court concludes that such action is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law. A petition for review of any action subject to judicial review under this subsection shall be filed in the appropriate Court within sixty days from the date of such action, or after such date if the petition is based solely on grounds arising after the sixtieth day. Any such petition may be made by any person who participated in the administrative proceedings and who is aggrieved by the action of the Secretary.(2) Any order or decision issued by the Secretary in a civil penalty proceeding or any other proceeding required to be conducted pursuant to section 554 of title 5 shall be subject to judicial review on or before 30 days from the date of such order or decision in accordance with subsection (b) of this section in the United States District Court for the district in which the surface coal mining operation is located. In the case of a proceeding to review an order or decision issued by the Secretary under the penalty section of this chapter, the court shall have jurisdiction to enter an order requiring payment of any civil penalty assessment enforced by its judgment. This availability of review established in this subsection shall not be construed to limit the operations of rights established in section 1270 of this title.(b) Evidence; conclusiveness of findings; orders

The court shall hear such petition or complaint solely on the record made before the Secretary. Except as provided in subsection (a), the findings of the Secretary if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. The court may affirm, vacate, or modify any order or decision or may remand the proceedings to the Secretary for such further action as it may direct.

(c) Temporary relief; prerequisitesIn the case of a proceeding to review any order or decision issued by the Secretary under this chapter, including an order or decision issued pursuant to subsection (c) or (d) of section 1275 of this title pertaining to any order issued under paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (a) of section 1271 of this title for cessation of coal mining and reclamation operations, the court may, under such conditions as it may prescribe, grant such temporary relief as it deems appropriate pending final determination of the proceedings if—(1) all parties to the proceedings have been notified and given an opportunity to be heard on a request for temporary relief;(2) the person requesting such relief shows that there is a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits of the final determination of the proceeding; and(3) such relief will not adversely affect the public health or safety or cause significant imminent environmental harm to land, air, or water resources.(d) Stay of action, order, or decision of Secretary

The commencement of a proceeding under this section shall not, unless specifically ordered by the court, operate as a stay of the action, order, or decision of the Secretary.

(e) Action of State regulatory authority

Action of the State regulatory authority pursuant to an approved State program shall be subject to judicial review by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with State law, but the availability of such review shall not be construed to limit the operation of the rights established in section 1270 of this title except as provided therein.

(Pub. L. 95–87, title V, § 526, Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 512.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 141 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981). · cites it 8× “Section 526 (c) of the Act, 30 U. S. C. § 1276 (c) (1976 ed., Supp. III), authorizes judicial review of a decision by the Secretary denying temporary relief.”
Shawnee Coal Co. v. Cecil D. Andrus, Sec'y of the Interior, 661 F.2d 1083 (6th Cir. 1981). · cites it 6× “§ 526(c), 30 U.S.C. § 1276 (c). In addition, the applicant may bypass the Interior Board of Surface Mining Appeals, 43 C.”
In Re Surface Mining Reg. Litig., 456 F. Supp. 1301 (D.D.C. 1978). · cites it 9× “30 U.S.C. § 1276 (a)(1). Certain plaintiffs are concerned about the possibility of “unpredictable applications” of the regulations in the future after this action has ended, which would be beyond 60 days after the promulgation of the rules.”
Pittston Co. v. Lujan, 798 F. Supp. 344 (W.D. Va. 1992). · cites it 17× “§ 1331 and 30 U.S.C. § 1276 (a)(1). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Pittston Company (“Pittston”), through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the business of mining coal in Virginia and other states.”
M.L. Johnson Fam. Prop. v. David Bernhardt, 924 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 2019). · cites it 5× “2004) (citation omitted); see also 30 U.S.C. § 1276 (a)(2) ("Any action subject to judicial review under this subsection shall be affirmed unless the court concludes that such action is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law.”
Gene A. Folden, Coastal Commc'ns Assocs., & Judith A. Longshore v. United States, 379 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The government challenged the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Claims Court, arguing that pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 1276 (a)(1), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had exclusive jurisdiction to consider challenges to regulations promulgated under SMCRA.”
Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “, 30 U.S.C. § 1276 (a)(1) (“Any action subject to judicial review under this subsection shall be affirmed unless the court concludes that such action is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law.”
Drummond Coal Co., Cross-Appellee v. James G. Watt, Cross-Appellant, 735 F.2d 469 (11th Cir. 1984). · cites it 4× “1 The Secretary maintains that Section 526(a)(1) of the Act, 30 U.S.C.A. § 1276 (a)(1), vests the United States District Court for the District of Columbia with exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to national regulations promulgated under the Act, and thus the district…”
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Kempthorne, 512 F.3d 702 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “2d 383 (1977), challenged the 1999 Rule pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 1276 (a)(1) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.”
Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, 603 U.S. 799 (2024). “within sixty days after the entry of such order, a written petition”); 30 U. S. C. § 1276 (a)(2) (“Any [covered] order or decision .”
Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998). “§ 2618 (Toxic Substances Control Act) (providing preenforeement review of agency action); 30 U. S. C. § 1276 (a) (Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977) (same); 42 U.”
Pennsylvania Fed'n of Sportsmen's Clubs v. Norton, 413 F. Supp. 2d 358 (M.D. Penn. 2006). · cites it 6× “§ 702 and 30 U.S.C. § 1276 (a). II. Legal Standard A.”
Show all 141 citing cases →
— 30 U.S.C. § 1276(a)(1) — 3 cases
Drummond Coal Co., Cross-Appellee v. James G. Watt, Cross-Appellant, 735 F.2d 469 (11th Cir. 1984). “1 The Secretary maintains that Section 526(a)(1) of the Act, 30 U.S.C.A. § 1276 (a)(1), vests the United States District Court for the District of Columbia with exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to national regulations promulgated under the Act, and thus the district…”
Pittston Coal Co. v. Babbitt, 66 F.3d 714 (4th Cir. 1995).
Illinois South Proj., Inc. v. Donald P. Hodel, Sec'y of the Interior, 844 F.2d 1286 (7th Cir. 1988).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.