Environmental Law (original) (raw)

Related papers

Environment, Energy, and Resources Law: The Year in Review 2011, Constitutional Law Report

Social Science Research Network, 2012

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

Environmental Decision-Making Through Adjudicatory Appeals in the United States

PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences

This research examines the appeals process of decisions made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As part of an adjudicatory appeals process, the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) was established in 1992 internal to the EPA to review the decisions of the agency in specific areas. The purpose of the EAB was to serve as a neutral arbitrator that assists in the expeditious corrections of error which includes providing for consistency of policymaking and alleviation of cases proceeding to the federal court system. This research explores if the EAB has lived up to its charter. Research questions include what are the outcomes of these EAB adjudicatory appeal hearings? Are some environmental laws challenged more than others? More importantly, what is the impact of the federal courts on this EAB adjudicatory appeal process? For instance, are the courts in disagreement or generally affirm EAB decisions? And, overall, how long does this process take for a petitioner who files an EAB appeal and then moves the case into the federal courts for a remedy? Using publicly available data, decisions are analyzed from 1992-2018 (n=1014) by the EAB in regard to the type of appeal, the environmental legislation and programs involved as well as

Adjudicatory Appeals in the United States

Evaluating Adjudicatory Appeals in the United States, 2019

This research examines the appeals process of decisions made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As part of an adjudicatory appeals process, the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) was established in 1992 internal to the EPA to review the decisions of the agency in specific areas. The purpose of the EAB was to serve as a neutral arbitrator that assists in the expeditious corrections of error which includes providing for consistency of policymaking and alleviation of cases proceeding to the federal court system. This research explores if the EAB has lived up to its charter. Research questions include what are the outcomes of these EAB adjudicatory appeal hearings? Are some environmental laws challenged more than others? More importantly, what is the impact of the federal courts on this EAB adjudicatory appeal process? For instance, are the courts in disagreement or generally affirm EAB decisions? And, overall, how long does this process take for a petitioner who files an EAB appeal and then moves the case into the federal courts for a remedy? Using publicly available data, decisions are analyzed from 1992-2018 (n=1014) by the EAB in regard to the type of appeal, the environmental legislation and programs involved as well as PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences 847 the duration of time for EAB decision-making over time. In addition, the outcome of the appeals to the federal courts (n=83) during this same time period are investigated to determine the efficaciousness of this process for an appellant. Results show that permits are 1.5 times more likely to be appealed versus other actions like penalties or consent orders before the EAB. Water issues (30.5%) are more likely to be appealed to the EAB than air (24.9%) or other cases. Based on data (n=552), the EAB has improved its processing time to provide decisions from approximately 7 months to 3 months. Only 8% of the EAB cases advance to the federal court system. However, the results indicate that appellants are not likely to have their case reversed by the federal court system. Only 13% of the EAB cases at the federal courts are reversed, and 9.6% are remanded back to the EAB, and 20.5% are affirmed. The majority of cases are either dismissed or denied (56.6%). This means that the original decision of the EAB remains intact for 77% of the cases heard at the federal courts. These results suggest some guidance to polluters early in the permitting process, particularly in water and air, could improve EPA decision-making preventing the need for cases coming before the EAB. The results indicate more guidance or clearer standards for implementation of permits is required by the EPA to polluters. In addition, the EAB appears to not be a major adjudicatory appeals venue for appellants, although the federal courts appear to be even less so which could mean the role of neutral arbitrator has not been achieved.

Dismissal of a Judicial Review in Environmental Matters

2021

An application for planning permission was submitted. The former was then validated and has indeed resulted in the present case. In support of the first ground, the applicant states that the members of the Board were misled as to whether or not there had been a breach of certain elements of the TM8 and LR9 policies. In support of this argument, he argues that the panel's report did not allow for a determination of the degree of compliance or non-compliance of certain elements of these policies with the development plan.

Texas Attorney General Opinion: DM-467

1998

Opinion No. DM-467 Re: Whether a hold and save harmless provision that requires a county to indemnify another party for damages creates a debt within the meaning of article XI, section 7 of the Texas Constitution (RQ-1001) Dear Mr. Isaacks: