The National Sea Grant Law Center

Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

August 14th, 2026

The National Sea Grant Law Center is pleased to offer the August 2026 issue of Ocean and Coastal Case Alert. The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management. (NSGLC-26-03-08)


Download Case Alert

  • FIRST CIRCUIT

  • Wilson v. Iguana Sport Servs., Corp., No. 25-1064, 2026 WL 2041937 (1st Cir. July 15, 2026).
  • Family members of two guests who drowned while snorkeling at a resort in Puerto Rico filed suit against multiple entities, ultimately proceeding only against one contractor that provided towel and beach attendants to the hotel and held a Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER) permit to conduct beach-related commercial operations. The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment for the contractor, finding it owed no duty of care to the guests. On appeal, the First Circuit agreed no duty to warn or protect the decedents arose from the contractor’s relationship with the hotel or the DNER permit. The court did not determine whether the contractor should be subject to the heightened duty of an innkeeper or whether the nature of beach operations can trigger a heightened duty. The court certified these questions to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court and retained jurisdiction pending the answers.


    Opinion Here


  • FIFTH CIRCUIT

    Citizens for Clean Air & Clean Water in Brazoria Cnty. v. U.S. Dep't of Transportation, No. 25-60202, 2026 WL 2333158 (5th Cir. Aug. 12, 2026).
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) improperly approved a deepwater port under the Deepwater Port Act (DWPA). The DWPA only allows one deepwater port per “application area.” The application area for the proposed deepwater port did not include another recently approved deepwater port, and, if it had, the proposed pipeline would violate DWPA. The court vacated MARAD’s approval of the application and remanded the matter for further proceedings.


    Opinion Here


  • SIXTH CIRCUIT

    Michigan
    In re Enbridge Energy, No. 168335, 2026 WL 2212865 (Mich. July 31, 2026).
  • The Michigan Supreme Court vacated the state’s approval and permit for construction of a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac for a new segment of the Line 5 pipeline. At the request of the Michigan Public Service Commission (PSC), an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had previously issued a decision limiting the scope of review to the tunnel project itself and excluding broader issues. The PSC approved Enbridge’s application. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court held that courts must review agency determinations under Michigan’s Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) de novo. The PSC erred by not considering whether the project would be the proximate cause of Line 5’s continued operation and its alleged impacts, inconsistently comparing alternatives, and not assessing impacts on public trust resources. The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.


    Opinion Here


  • Thomson v. Peterson, No. 24-11761, 2026 WL 2044025 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2026).
  • Lakefront property owners in Northern Michigan applied for but never obtained a permit before installing a seawall along the shoreline. After an employee of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) inspected the property and took photos of the seawall, the property owners filed suit, arguing that the inspection violated the Fourth Amendment and that the employee committed a trespass in violation of state law. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the employee, finding she was entitled to qualified immunity on the individual claim and the Eleventh Amendment bars the official capacity claim; the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the trespass claim.


    Opinion Here


  • NINTH CIRCUIT

    Inland Empire Waterkeeper v. Corona Clay Co., No. 24-6090, 2026 WL 2251545 (9th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026).
  • Environmental groups filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act (CWA), alleging a clay recycling company violated its stormwater-permit requirements due to discharges potentially reaching a tributary of the Santa Ana River. After reversing a lower court ruling in favor of the company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for a new trial in 2021 due in part due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, which expanded the Clean Water Act’s coverage to indirect discharges that are the functional equivalent of direct discharges. On remand, the district court ruled in favor of the environmental groups. Shortly thereafter, the company filed a post-judgment motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or alternatively, for a new trial due to the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA, which narrowed the definition of “waters of the United States” under the CWA. The district court denied the motion. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of subject matter jurisdiction, however, due to the change in law under Sackett, the court reversed the denial of the motion for a new trial and remanded for the district court to consider whether the tributary is within the scope of the CWA.


    Opinion Here


  • Hawaii
    Maui Tomorrow Found. v. Maui Plan. Comm'n, No. SCAP-24-0000819, 2026 WL 2111568 (Haw. July 22, 2026).
  • The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaiʻi affirmed a circuit court’s decision invalidating portions of the Maui Planning Commission’s amended rules for development in Maui’s Special Management Area (SMA), which includes environmentally sensitive shorelands. The rules created categorical exemptions from the Hawaii’s Coastal Zone Management Act’s (CZMA) assessment process and delegated assessment duties to developers. The court held that the commission exceeded its authority in issuing the rules, which undermined environmental safeguards required by the CZMA.


    Opinion Here


  • D.C. CIRCUIT

    Friends of Animals v. Williams, No. 24-5278, 2026 WL 2318424 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 11, 2026).
  • The Endangered Species Act (ESA) allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to treat unlisted species as endangered or threatened under the ESA if it is similar in appearance to a listed species. Advocacy groups challenged FWS’s decision not to consider appearance-based listing for any species that is already listed as endangered or threatened. The plaintiffs argued that a threatened species, in this case a Northern distinct population segment of the Southern Subspecies of scarlet macaw, should be treated as endangered due to its similarity of appearance to a subspecies listed as endangered. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court disagreed and reversed, finding the ESA only authorizes the FWS to treat unlisted species as endangered or threatened based on similarity of appearance, not species that are already listed.


    Opinion Here

Subscribe to the Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management.

Subscribe to the Case Alert

Case Alert Archive

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

© 2026 National Sea Grant Law Center • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E • University, MS 38677 | Problems?   Webmaster | |