The Associated Press reported last night that the U.S. Supreme Court has asked for additional briefs in the Coeur Alaska Inc. vs. Southeast Conservation Council case. The court held oral arguments in January and a ruling in the case could have consequences for other development projects in the United States, including Pebble.

Here are the word-for-word details of the Supreme Court request.
-----------------

May 4 2009

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following questions: (1) If the discharge of the slurry into the lake would violate Section 301 or Section 306 of the Clean Water Act, would that future violation authorize a court to set aside the permits issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the Record of Decision issued by the United States Forest Service, as “not in accordance with law,” 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A)? See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 646 (1990). (2) If a discharge comes within the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency’s effluent limitations and satisfies the definition of fill material, may the discharger obtain permits under both Section 402 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act? Must the discharger do so? The briefs, not to exceed 6,000 words, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, May 15, 2009. Amicus briefs, not to exceed 4,500 words, may be filed with the Clerk and served upon counsel to the parties on or before 2 p.m., Friday, May 15, 2009. Reply briefs, not to exceed 3,000 words, may be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, May 22, 2009.