Litigation
BP Spill + 4
Four years ago, the BP Deepwater Horizon was still gushing oil. The well was finally capped in mid- July. There’s been a lot of legal action since then, but it’s hard to keep track of all the piecemeal developments. Here’s quick rundown. The Presidential Commission investigating the spill identified the “root causes” as management failures by industry and …
Continue reading “BP Spill + 4”
CONTINUE READINGUARG Decision — Due Any Day Now — Should Not Undermine the Legality of CAA Section 111d Rules
Case involves statutory interpretation questions not relevant to power plant rules
The U.S. Supreme Court should issue a decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA very soon, perhaps as early as Monday (the Court typically issues its opinions on Mondays and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. EST). The case involves an important set of regulations designed to regulate greenhouse gases from large new “sources” (industrial facilities, chemical …
CONTINUE READINGSupreme Court: North Carolina Tort Plaintiffs Can’t Sue for Latent Injuries from Contaminated Sites
Court holds that federal law doesn’t preempt state statutes of repose
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger. In this case, which my colleague Jesse Lueders described and analyzed in detail here and here, the Court had to decide whether state statutes of repose can bar tort lawsuits by people harmed by latent injuries from toxic contamination, by imposing …
CONTINUE READINGJudicial “Smoke Signals” and the 111(d) Rule
In an earlier post, I suggested that EPA’s decision about how broadly to write the final version of the 111(d) rule might be affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in the pending UARG case. I made the suggestion without much explanation, and it apparently didn’t come across very clearly. So I thought it would be worth …
Continue reading “Judicial “Smoke Signals” and the 111(d) Rule”
CONTINUE READINGWhat Beijing Could Learn From George Washington
But It Seems More Interested in Following John Roberts
Alex’s terrific op-ed raises two key questions, one snide and disturbing, the other more profound. As for the first, I couldn’t help notice this point in the middle of his piece: Courts often refuse to even accept difficult or sensitive cases. The Supreme People’s Court has adopted rules for breaking up class-action lawsuits and relegating …
Continue reading “What Beijing Could Learn From George Washington”
CONTINUE READINGEmissions Trading and the Supreme Court
Advocates of cap-and-trade should find support from the Supreme Court’s opinion in the cross-state pollution case.
In a number of areas, including climate change regulations, a key question is EPA’s power to control compliance costs. A particularly important method is the use of cap-and-trade systems. For instance, there has been considerable discussion of whether EPA could authorize states to use cap-and-trade to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, as opposed …
Continue reading “Emissions Trading and the Supreme Court”
CONTINUE READINGJustice Scalia’s Puzzling Dissent
Justice Scalia’s dissent in EME Homer contains a number of unusual lapses in substance and tone.
As I’ve been studying the opinions in EME Homer, I’m increasingly struck by the oddities of Justice Scalia’s dissent. There was a flap last week about his blunder, later quietly corrected, in describing one of his own past opinions. But that’s not the only peculiarity of the dissent. As a quick reminder, EME Homer involved EPA’s effort to deal with interstate …
Continue reading “Justice Scalia’s Puzzling Dissent”
CONTINUE READINGWhat’s in a Name?
Supreme Court arguments surround the policies and effects of limitations periods
A few weeks back, I posted about CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, a case then awaiting oral argument in the Supreme Court. As you may recall (or as you can read here, with links to relevant documents), Waldburger involves hazardous waste contamination, and a provision of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) that …
Continue reading “What’s in a Name?”
CONTINUE READINGTurning Water Into Wine: An “Unreasonable Use” of Water in California?
Pending Litigation Likely to Affect Scope of California Constitution’s Ban on Waste & Unreasonable Use of Water
Today a California appellate court in San Francisco heard arguments in a case that is likely to affect how broadly–or narrowly–California’s State Water Resources Control Board can apply the state’s most powerful water law. The case, Light v. California State Water Resources Control Board, involves a challenge by wine grape growers in the Russian River watershed …
Continue reading “Turning Water Into Wine: An “Unreasonable Use” of Water in California?”
CONTINUE READINGMore About EPA’s Victory
The Court sensibly upheld EPA’s method of allocating responsibility between states, while Scalia wrote an unusually sloppy dissent.
As Ann has just written the Supreme Court’s decision today in the EME Homer case was a big victory for EPA and for air pollution control. In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court upheld EPA’s interstate transport rule. Ann focused on the potential implications of the decision for the other big environmental case pending before …
Continue reading “More About EPA’s Victory”
CONTINUE READING