OMAHA (DTN) -- There will be no hearing of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on the waters of the United States rule as a result of an order issued Thursday by the court in Cincinnati.
Instead of the entire 23-judge court reviewing the case, the illegal future of the rule will remain in the hands of a three-judge panel. Ag groups, states and others that had sued over the Clean Water Act rule were pushing for an "en banc" hearing, meaning they essentially wanted all 23 judges of the Sixth Circuit Court to rehear the arguments on jurisdiction.
"The court received six petitions for rehearing en banc," the court said in an order issued Thursday. "The original panel has reviewed the petitions for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petitions were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the cases.
"The petitions then were circulated to the full court. No judge has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Therefore, the petitions are denied."
The waters of the U.S. rule, commonly called WOTUS, was meant to clarify EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authority over areas around waterways where the federal government has authority to either require a federal permit or stop any activity that would disturb the waterway. Opponents claim the rule would give the regulatory agencies broad authority over basic farming practices simply because water may pool somewhere after a rain or fill a ditch.
The battle over the rule continues to play out on several fronts. President Barack Obama vetoed legislation earlier this year that would have sent EPA and the Army Corps back to the drawing board in drafting a rule. On Thursday, a vote that would have prevented the agencies from implementing the rule got 56 votes but failed because it needed 60 votes to get into legislation.
In the court case, a number of industry groups led by the American Farm Bureau Federation filed the fairly unique request with the court for rehearing en banc on motions to dismiss the consolidated group of cases. Instead, industry groups wanted to allow cases around the country to revert back to the individual district courts.
Agricultural and other industry groups are unconvinced legal challenges to the rule should be heard by the Sixth Circuit Court even though judges have indicated in previous rulings they may be sympathetic to those groups that claim the rule is a flawed federal overreach.