OT 2012 and the Environment
This Supreme Court Term features a number of environmental cases. We’re now about two-thirds of the way through the Term, so I thought it might be helpful to post a summary of the cases. My impression is that the Court is interested in environmental law to the extent that it seems to impinge on the rights of individual property owners. But the Court doesn’t seem take much of an interest in risk regulation or air pollution, despite their importance for the economy and for public health. Anyway, here’s the list:
| Case Name | Issue |
| Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. U.S. | Takings clause – recurrent flooding, held to be potentially a taking. |
| Decker v. Northwest Env. Def. Center,
Georgia-Pacific West v. Northwest Env. Def. Center |
Clean Water Act, review of permitting rules, logging roads as point sources |
| LA County Flood Dist. v. NRDC | Water movement within same waterway is not a point source under the Clean Water Act |
| Koontz v. St. John River Management Dist. | Takings and permit conditions |
Some non-environmental cases with possible relevance to environmental issues:
| Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l | Standing |
| Cable, Telecom, and Tech. v. FCC | Chevron doctrine |
| Mutual Pharm Co. v. Bartlett | Preemption |
Reader Comments
4 Replies to “OT 2012 and the Environment”
Comments are closed.
About Dan
Dan Farber has written and taught on environmental and constitutional law as well as about contracts, jurisprudence and legislation. Currently at Berkeley Law, he has al…
READ more
It is interesting that there are no climate cases on the Supreme Court’s docket. Perhaps the scarcity of facts and hard evidence has defeated such cases before they could reach the appellate courts. Most of the so-called climate “science” cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
It is interesting that there are no climate cases on the Supreme Court’s docket. Perhaps the scarcity of facts and hard evidence has defeated such cases before they could reach the appellate courts. Most of the so-called climate “science” cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
Or perhaps it could be exactly the opposite of what you suggest, bqrq. It could be that EPA and other agencies are doing exactly what the Supreme Court has told them to do.
See, for example, Mass. v. EPA (U.S. Supreme Court 2007):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
and Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (D.C. Circuit 2012):
http://www.bna.com/dc-circuit-decision-n12884910286/
The DC circuit decision linked immediately above could, however, still come before the Supreme Court in the next term, since the time for petitions to have the Court hear the matter has not run yet.
Or perhaps it could be exactly the opposite of what you suggest, bqrq. It could be that EPA and other agencies are doing exactly what the Supreme Court has told them to do.
See, for example, Mass. v. EPA (U.S. Supreme Court 2007):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
and Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA (D.C. Circuit 2012):
http://www.bna.com/dc-circuit-decision-n12884910286/
The DC circuit decision linked immediately above could, however, still come before the Supreme Court in the next term, since the time for petitions to have the Court hear the matter has not run yet.