by Chelsie Kidd, a 2015 Judge K.K. Legett Fellow at the Washington Legal Foundation and a student at Texas Tech School of Law.
On June 4, 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a much anticipated draft assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The draft assessment was conducted in response to Congress’s request to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources.
For decades, the oil and gas industry has utilized hydraulic fracturing, also called “fracing” or “fracking,” to increase oil and gas production from shale formations that could not otherwise be profitably mined. Opponents to hydraulic fracturing have focused on the actual process, when the mixture of water and proppant (commonly sand), and a small amount of chemicals, is injected underground. Fracturing’s purported impact on potable water has figured prominently in activists’ demonization campaigns. When he’s not busy playing an angst-ridden scientist with anger issues, actor Mark Ruffalo is writing unscientifically about how fracturing makes our water flammable. Propaganda film Gasland included a since-debunked image of tap water being set on fire. Opponents have advocated for cities and states to ban hydraulic fracturing outright. As a result, two states with natural gas resources—New York and Maryland—have respectively banned the practice and put in place a fracking moratorium. In California, a lawsuit has even been filed against the state under anti-discrimination law for allowing fracturing in a manner that supposedly has a disparate impact on minority children. Continue reading
Featured Expert Column – Environmental Law and Policy
by Samuel B. Boxerman, Sidley Austin LLP with Ben Tannen, Sidley Austin LLP
On June 29, in Michigan v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) rule to the D.C. Circuit, holding the agency should have considered costs when determining whether or not to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power plants. The MATS rule, promulgated in 2012, had set standards for emissions of toxic air pollutants such as mercury from new and existing coal and oil-fired power plants.
This decision is a significant victory for industry on the legal interpretation of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). However, it raises major uncertainties with regard to the steps the D.C. Circuit and EPA will take towards emissions of mercury and other air toxics from power plants going forward, as well as with regard to anticipated litigation surrounding EPA’s soon to be promulgated “Clean Power Plan” regulations. Continue reading
In one of our first WLF Legal Pulse posts five years ago, we wrote about efforts at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revitalize “environmental justice” (EJ), which had essentially laid dormant since the Clinton Administration. The EJ movement’s influence has gradually spread, with EPA citing “EJ concerns” among its reasons for opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, and activists utilizing EJ to successfully oppose express toll lanes in Arlington, Virginia and agitate for severe development limits in the Los Angeles area.
Several recent developments at EPA aim to inject the environmental justice movement even further into federal regulatory policy-making. Continue reading
Science and Federal Regulation: Is the Office of Management and Budget an Effective Gatekeeper?
WLF Media Briefing, Tuesday, May 19, 10:00-11:00 a.m. EDT
Location: 2009 Massachusetts Avenue, NW (WLF headquarters)—RSVP to email@example.com or click HERE for free registration to view program live online
How federal regulators use—and abuse—science in the regulatory process has a profound impact on regulated businesses and consumers who purchase their products and services. In addition to the financial impact, every time that an agency forces science and the scientific process to serve its ideological or political agendas, rather than be guided by the neutral data, the public becomes less trusting of government pronouncements based on science. Below are some troubling recent examples of regulatory junk science. The first example demonstrates that protections against junk science do exist in the courtroom. The subsequent three examples reflect the lack of similar protections in the rulemaking and adjudication contexts.
Fourth and Sixth Circuits Slap-down EEOC. For the second time in less than a year, a federal appellate court has rebuked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for its use of junk science in accusing an employer of discrimination for conducting criminal background checks in its hiring process. EEOC’s litigation crusade against criminal background checks has faltered since its outset, with federal district court judges in Ohio and Maryland separately dismissing Title VII claims in 2013. Last April, just 20 days after hearing oral argument, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Ohio trial judge’s decision in EEOC v. Kaplan. The court found the EEOC’s statistical proof of disparate impact—compiled and presented by expert witness Kevin Murphy, an industrial psychologist—unreliable and “based on a homemade methodology” not generally accepted in the scientific community. A WLF Legal Opinion Letter and a WLF Legal Pulse post, both published last spring, offer more detail on the ruling. Continue reading
Featured Expert Column − Complex Serial and Mass Tort Litigation
by Richard O. Faulk, Hollingsworth LLP*
It’s been a long wait for those who believe the federal Clean Air Act preempts public nuisance claims under state common law.
When the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Connecticut v. American Electric Power in 2011, it refused to rule on the preemption issue—leaving the question for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to resolve on remand.1 Before that could happen, however, the plaintiffs withdrew their complaints—and the opportunity vanished.2
When a federal district court granted dismissal of a public nuisance claim in Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, the opportunity rose again. Hopes were high that the Third Circuit would affirm the dismissal, but alas, the court reversed. Nevertheless, the case rose to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari. Numerous amicus curiae briefs were submitted to support the petition, but the Supreme Court denied review. Many were left wondering whether the Supreme Court’s remand of the issue in AEP truly reflected the Court’s interest in the issue—or whether it was simply a matter of appellate housekeeping. Continue reading
On a balmy late August day in Orlando, Florida, nearly a dozen Orange County police officers, some dressed in ballistic vests and masked helmets, swept into Strictly Skillz barbershop with their guns drawn. As their colleagues blocked off the parking lot entrances and exits, the officers declared that the shop was closed and ordered its patrons to leave, depriving the shop of business and perhaps deterring future patrons. Two barbers and the owner were handcuffed. A plain-clothed member of the raiding party demanded to see the barbershop’s business license.
Yes, you read that correctly. On August 21, 2010, a veritable SWAT team of heavily armed police conducted a warrantless inspection to check for barbers’ licensing violations. The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) inspector soon determined that Strictly Skillz barbers were properly licensed (which, as you’ll learn below, they already knew), so the police uncuffed the detained barbers and owner and left the shop.
The owner and three barbers sued a number of the officers involved for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and a federal district court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. On September 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a strongly worded opinion affirming the lower court (Berry v. Leslie). The ruling provides a forceful reminder that the Fourth Amendment protects businesses (and their employees) from overzealous regulatory inspections. Continue reading