Environment, Energy, and Resources Law: The Year in Review 2011, Constitutional Law Report (original) (raw)

2012, Social Science Research Network

In 2015, noteworthy decisions at the intersection of constitutional law and environmental, energy, and natural resources law occurred in the areas of standing, the Commerce Clause, preemption, takings, due process, the First Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, and state constitutional law. I. STANDING To invoke the jurisdiction of an Article III court, a plaintiff must establish standing by proving: (1) an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, not hypothetical or conjectural; (2) causation that is fairly traceable to the defendant's actions; and (3) redressability showing that a judicial remedy is likely to fix the injury caused by the defendant. A plaintiff also has to meet the requirements of prudential standing, including the requirement that the plaintiff's alleged injury falls within the zone of interest of the relevant statute. During 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two standing decisions that, although not specifically in environmental cases, speak to important issues of legislative standing and association standing. In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Indezpendent Redistricting Commission, the Supreme Court heard the state legislature's challenge to a citizen ballot initiative that gave redistricting power to an independent commission, Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), in an effort to end gerrymandering in the state. After AIRC created the 2012 redistricting map, the legislature sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction, claiming the power given to the commission ran afoul of the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which arguably gives sole authority to the state legislature. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled the legislature had standing to sue but rejected the suit on its merits. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the district court ruling, finding that the legislature had standing but rejecting on the merits, noting that "one must not 'confus[e] weakness on the merits with the absence of Article III standing.", 2 Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that the constitutional amendment giving sole authority to the AIRC completely nullifies any vote the legislature might take to affect redistricting plans. The nullification of votes the legislature could previously take was sufficient to establish an injury in fact. In Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, voters in Alabama challenged the redistricting plans for the state's house and senate, claiming at least four counties