Law Commons^™

Standing And Global Warming: Is Injury To All Injury To None?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Since global warming potentially affects everyone in the world, does any individual have standing to sue the U.S. EPA or other federal agencies to force them to address climate change issues? Suits addressing global warming raise difficult standing questions because some Supreme Court decisions have stated or implied that courts should not allow standing for plaintiffs who file suits alleging general injuries to the public at large because the political branches of government - Congress and the executive branch - are better equipped to resolve such issues. There is a better argument, however, for courts to recognize standing for plaintiffs …

A Scrivener's Error Or Greater Protection Of The Public: Does The Epa Have The Authority To Delist Low-Risk Sources Of Carcinogens From Section 112'S Maximum Achievable Control Technology Requirements?, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This article will focus on the scope of the EPA's authority to delist categories and subcategories of sources, especially those emitting carcinogens.

This article concludes that the EPA's creation of a low-risk subcategory of PCWP sources is improper because the plain language of subsection 112(c)(9)(B)(i) limits the Agency's delisting authority to whole categories of carcinogenic sources. The EPA has failed to meet its heavy burden in attempting to demonstrate that Congress made a drafting error when it omitted the term "subcategory" in subsection 112(c)(9)(B)(i) for carcinogenic chemicals. The doctrine of scrivener's error is inapplicable to the plain language of subsection …

Can Administrative Regulations Interpret Rights Enforceable Under Section 1983?: Why Chevron Deference Survives Sandoval And Gonzaga, Bradford Mank

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

There is a split in the circuits regarding whether and when agency regulations may establish rights enforceable through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. In 1987, in Wright v. City of Roanoke, the Supreme Court held that a statute and regulations interpreting the statute could create enforceable rights under Section 1983, but left unclear to what extent it had relied on the regulations alone to reach this conclusion. The District of Columbia Circuit and Sixth Circuit have held that at least some valid federal regulations may create rights enforceable through Section 1983. Concluding that only Congress by enacting a statute may create …