The Supreme Court recently issued its much-anticipated opinion in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which it barred plaintiffs’ U.S. lawsuit against foreign oil companies for alleged human rights abuses committed in Africa.  Kiobel, which featured multiple rounds of oral argument and over 80 amici curiae briefs filed, was being watched carefully by multi-national corporations and the international community.  While the Court ultimately came down on the side of the corporate defendants in Kiobel, the opinion may have stopped short of a workable rule that will substantially limit the volume of U.S. lawsuits for alleged international law violations committed overseas.   

On December 4, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Resources Council, Inc., an appeal from a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit finding that a channelized portion of a river in Los Angeles County that allowed stormwater runoff to flow into an unchannelized segment of the river could be considered a "point source" subject to the Clean Water Act ("CWA").  Following the Ninth Circuit's ruling, many had criticized the decision as inconsistent with the Supreme Court's holding in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. 95 (2004), which had held that a transfer of water within a single body of water cannot constitute a discharge from a point source under the CWA.  Based on the positions taken and questions asked at oral argument, there would appear to be little chance that the Ninth Circuit's decision survives unscathed.