A River Runs to Court: Environmental Activists Circumvent Democracy to Impose Agenda

colorado river gorgeThis is a frustrating time for environmental special-interest activists. Their cause is not one the public rates as a national priority. Their allies are no longer in leadership positions in federal agencies. And though they still have friends at the state and local levels, shrinking budgets prevent those regulators and elected officials from pursuing the activists’ agenda. With waning influence in other branches, many environmental organizations now increasingly look to a long-standing and reliable tool of advocacy—the lawsuit—to achieve their ends.

Some groups have gone well beyond such traditional environmental litigation as citizen suits under state or federal laws, and are instead seeking judicial injunctions that would force government regulators to implement activists’ preferred policies. These lawsuits suffer from a number of infirmities, not the least of which is they turn the entire democratic process on its head. Continue reading “A River Runs to Court: Environmental Activists Circumvent Democracy to Impose Agenda”

New First Amendment Challenge Takes Aim at California’s Listing of Glyphosate as a Potential Carcinogen Under Prop 65

warningLong the subject of much controversy, California’s Proposition 65 law prohibits businesses from exposing Californians to chemicals “known to the State of California to cause cancer” without first providing a warning. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) publishes a list of chemicals “known to the State of California to cause cancer.” By statute, that list must include substances designated as potential carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an international non-governmental entity. Continue reading “New First Amendment Challenge Takes Aim at California’s Listing of Glyphosate as a Potential Carcinogen Under Prop 65”

Ninth Circuit Permits Interest-Group Enforcement of RCRA after EPA Exercises Non-Enforcement Discretion on Stormwater

sboxermanFeatured Expert Column—Environmental Law and Policy

By Samuel B. Boxerman, Sidley Austin LLP

Can an environmental organization file suit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s (“RCRA”) citizen-suit provision claiming harm from stormwater runoff which could be, but was not, subject to limits under a Clean Water Act (“CWA”) permit? In a November 2, 2017 decision, Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it could. The ruling, which also rejected the defendant’s arguments opposing Article III standing, is a portentous development at a time when environmental groups are actively seeking out litigation opportunities to enforce federal regulations. Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Permits Interest-Group Enforcement of RCRA after EPA Exercises Non-Enforcement Discretion on Stormwater”

D.C. Circuit Once Again Reminds EPA Which Governmental Branch Enacts Laws

Featured Expert Column – Environmental Law and Policy

sboxermanBy Samuel B. Boxerman, Sidley Austin LLP with Katharine Falahee Newman, Sidley Austin LLP

In recent years, either when Congress has chosen not to act on certain matters—or arguably does so without sufficient clarity—the Executive Branch has asserted the power to address issues through regulation. These agency actions, of course, run headlong into one of the core separation of powers under the Constitution—that Congress is empowered to enact laws while the Executive is tasked with implementing them.

Hence, not surprisingly, the judiciary has increasingly been asked to answer whether an agency had the statutory authority to issue a particular regulation—or whether the agency exceeded the power it had been granted by the Congress.

A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit adds to that jurisprudence. On August 8, 2017, a three-judge panel ruled in Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or Act) when it issued a 2015 rule eliminating the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in certain products (the “2015 HFC Rule”). Continue reading “D.C. Circuit Once Again Reminds EPA Which Governmental Branch Enacts Laws”

High Court Must Review ESA Decision that Endangers Ability to Appeal Agency Actions

st_tammany_navA group of Louisiana landowners is asking the Supreme Court to review a US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision that dramatically expands the scope of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Weyerhaeuser Co. and Markle Interests, L.L.C.. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Their concerns are well-justified; the appeals court upheld land-use restrictions imposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the purpose of protecting an endangered species of frog—even though the frog does not exist in Louisiana and could not live on the Petitioners’ land unless they substantially modified it.

But Supreme Court review is warranted for an additional and perhaps more important reason: the Fifth Circuit agreed with FWS that the Service’s refusal to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of its actions was not subject to judicial review.  As Judge Edith Jones stated in dissent, that decision plays havoc with administrative law and significantly undercuts the “strong presumption” that the actions of federal administrative agencies are subject to judicial review.

Worse still, the appeals court established a double-standard.  It permits environmental groups to seek judicial review when FWS invokes cost considerations as a reason not to impose land-use restrictions, but it denies landowners the right to go to court when FWS reaches the opposite conclusion.  That denial is particularly troubling, given that FWS’s own studies indicated that its land-use restrictions could cost landowners up to $34 million while providing no discernable benefit to the endangered frog. Continue reading “High Court Must Review ESA Decision that Endangers Ability to Appeal Agency Actions”

DC Circuit’s “Aneurysm of Activism”: EPA Temporary Stay of Air Rule Is Final Agency Action

Featured Expert Column – Environmental Law and Policy

sboxermanBy Samuel B. Boxerman, Sidley Austin LLP with Katharine Falahee Newman, Sidley Austin LLP

On July 3, 2017, in a 2-1 per curium decision, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated a three-month stay that the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) had issued while the agency reconsiders its 2016 New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for the oil and gas sector.  See Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, No. 17-1145, (D.C. Cir. July 3, 2017).  In a well-reasoned dissent, Judge Brown argued neither the agency’s decision to grant a temporary stay nor reconsider aspects of its own regulation were final agency action.  Relying on the dissent, intervening states and industry stakeholders have sought rehearing en banc and that request is pending.  However, regardless of the outcome of that request, the panel ruling indicates that EPA may face an activist DC Circuit that will scrutinize the agency’s process as it reconsiders regulations promulgated during the previous Administration.     Continue reading “DC Circuit’s “Aneurysm of Activism”: EPA Temporary Stay of Air Rule Is Final Agency Action”

Update: Justice May Yet be Served in 30-Year-Old EPA Wetlands Case Against Small Erie, PA Farmer

Guest Commentary

By Lawrence A. Kogan*

An April 20, 2017 WLF Legal Pulse post on the need for a new strategy for federal wetlands regulation presented a long-running enforcement action against a small Erie, Pennsylvania farmer as indicative of the harm wrought by the government’s deeply flawed current approach to “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Two recent developments—an order by a federal magistrate judge in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the filing of three Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims by the targeted farmer, Robert Brace—might significantly change the course of this 30-year law-enforcement misadventure.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first initiated a lawsuit under § 404 of Clean Water Act (CWA) against Brace in 1990 (United States v. Brace). The suit claimed Brace unlawfully failed to obtain a US Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) dredge-and-fill permit for drainage-tilling activities undertaken on government-designated wetlands.  The suit came after Brace, a well-known property rights advocate, had endured three years of being served with EPA, Corps, and US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) administrative-violation notices. Continue reading “Update: Justice May Yet be Served in 30-Year-Old EPA Wetlands Case Against Small Erie, PA Farmer”