Court Opinion

ID: 9425278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:14:16.673842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:59.736095
License: Public Domain

dissent in part, because they agree with
the Court of Appeals that the respondent on remand should also be given the opportunity to prove the nonexistence of a permit program at the time of the alleged offenses.
Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Rehnquist agree with Part I, but believing that the Court’s opinion and judgment in United States v. Standard Oil Co., 384
*676U. S. 224 (1966), make absolutely clear the meaning and reach of § 13 with respect to PICCO’s industrial discharge into the Monongahela River; that subsequent reliance upon any contrary administrative attitude on the part of the Corps of Engineers, express or by implication, is unwarranted; and that the District Court was correct in rejecting PICCO’s offer of proof of reliance as irrelevant, would reverse the Court of Appeals with directions to reinstate the judgment of conviction.