Law Commons^™

Does The Evolving Concept Of Due Process In Obergefell Justify Judicial Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases And Climate Change?: Juliana V. United States, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion, which held that same sex marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution’s due process clause, reasoned that the principles of substantive due process may evolve because of changing societal views of what constitutes “liberty” under the clause, and that judges may recognize new liberty rights in light of their “reasoned judgement.” In Juliana v. United States, Judge Aiken used her “reasoned judgement” to conclude that evolving principles of substantive due process in the Obergefell decision allowed the court to find that the plaintiffs were entitled to a liberty right to a stable climate system capable …

Shale Gas And Clean Energy Policy, Joseph P. Tomain

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

If we look behind the numbers on energy consumption, how much of that declining consumption is attributable to increases in energy efficiency and how much is attributable to a poor economy? If we look more closely at shale gas production, particularly when we consider hydraulic fracturing, what environmental costs are associated with developing this domestic resource? And, from a broader perspective, what role should natural gas, including shale gas, play in the country's clean energy future? Will we continue to favor fossil-fuel incumbents at the expense of new entrants in renewable resources and energy efficiency? This Article will address these …

Our Generation's Sputnik Moment: Regulating Energy Innovation, Joseph P. Tomain

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama stressed the necessity of innovation as the key to unlocking our economic future. More pointedly, he stated that now is "our generation's Sputnik moment." Just as the United States responded to national security threats posed by a cold war Russia, today we must respond to threats to our economy and our environment, as well as to our national security, posed by an oil addiction that we have not been able to break for over half a century. The intertwined needs to provide sufficient energy, environmental protection, and a vibrant economy …

Standing For Private Parties In Global Warming Cases: Traceable Standing Causation Does Not Require Proximate Causation, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This Article argues courts should apply a relatively liberal approach in deciding standing issues for private plaintiffs pursuing climate change suits even if courts ultimately conclude that it is inappropriate to grant relief on the merits to those same plaintiffs because the Supreme Court has clearly declared that standing is a preliminary question that should be treated separately from decisions on the merits and standing causation requires less proof than proximate causation on the merits. The Supreme Court in its 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA held that a state had standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to …

Standing And Future Generations: Does Massachusetts V. Epa Open Standing For Generations To Come?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Many issues, especially potential environmental catastrophes caused by climate change, affect not just the living, but also future generations. The bias in our political system against addressing the interests of future generations poses serious obstacles in solving long-term environmental problems such as global warming. Because future generations cannot vote, unelected federal judges are more suited to protect their interests than the political branches.

An important question is whether anyone has standing to sue on behalf of future generations in the federal courts. The Supreme Court's Article III standing test requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that they have personally suffered an injury …