Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Sturgeon V. Frost, Layne L. Ryerson

Public Land & Resources Law Review

After two trips to the United States Supreme Court, an Alaskan moose hunter secured motorized access to his hunting ground while establishing Alaska as the exception, rather than the rule, regarding federal land management. In a much-anticipated holding, the Court determined that the surface waters of the Nation River within the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve qualify as “private” land and therefore fall beyond the control of the National Park Service. The decision stripped the Park Service of normal regulatory authority over navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, prompting a concurrence urging Congress to clarify resulting ambiguities.

Herrera V. Wyoming, Dylan M. Jaicks

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Stemming from the conviction of a Crow tribal member for illegal hunting, Herrera v. Wyoming reignited long-running questions concerning treaty abrogation and precedent. In an effort to clarify conflicting case law, the Supreme Court upheld the Crow Tribe’s reserved hunting rights and rejected the argument that statehood extinguished such rights.

The State Of Exactions, Timothy M. Mulvaney

William & Mary Law Review

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Supreme Court slightly expanded the range of land use permitting situations in which heightened judicial scrutiny is appropriate in a constitutional “exaction” takings case. In crafting a vision of regulators as strategic extortionists of private property interests, though, Koontz prompted many takings observers to predict that the case would provide momentum for a more significant expansion of such scrutiny in takings cases involving land use permit conditions moving forward, and perhaps even an extension into other regulatory contexts, as well.

Five years on, this Article evaluates the extent to which …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Non-Impact Of The United States Supreme Court Regulatory Takings Cases On The State Courts: Does The Supreme Court Really Matter?, Ronald H. Rosenberg

Ronald H. Rosenberg

No abstract provided.

Can A State’S Water Rights Be Dammed? Environmental Flows And Federal Dams In The Supreme Court, Reed D. Benson

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

Interstate rivers are subject to the doctrine of equitable apportionment, whereby the Supreme Court seeks to ensure that all states that share such rivers get a fair portion of their benefits. The Court has rarely issued an equitable apportionment decree, however, and there is little law on whether the doctrine protects river flows for environmental purposes. The ongoing Florida v. Georgia litigation in the Supreme Court raises this issue, as Florida seeks to limit consumptive uses by upstream Georgia to preserve flows in the Apalachicola River, which provide both economic and environmental benefits. This Article summarizes both the equitable apportionment …

Standing For Standing Rock?: Vindicating Native American Religious And Land Rights By Adapting New Zealand's Te Awa Tupua Act To American Soil, Malcolm Mcdermond

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

On February 23, 2017, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“Tribe”) was forced to disband its nearly year-long protest against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which threatened the integrity of its ancestral lands. The Tribe sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, but the court ruled against the Tribe and failed to protect its interests. While the United States was forcibly removing Indigenous protesters, other countries were taking steps to protect Indigenous populations. In unprecedented legislative action, New Zealand took radical steps to protect the land and cultural rights of …

Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come To Generate Environmental Law Without Congress, Donald J. Kochan

Texas A&M Law Review

The administrative state has emerged as a pervasive machine that has become the dominate generator of legal rules—despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution commits the legislative power to Congress alone. When examining legislation authorizing administrative agencies to promulgate rules, we are often left asking whether Congress “dele- gates” away its lawmaking authority by giving agencies too much power and discretion to decide what rules should be promulgated and to determine how rich to make their content. If the agencies get broad authority, it is not too hard to understand why they would fulsomely embrace the grant to its fullest. …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Half A Century Of Supreme Court Clean Air Act Interpretation: Purposivism, Textualism, Dynamism, And Activism, David M. Driesen, Thomas M. Keck, Brandon T. Metroka

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article addresses the history of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act, which now goes back almost half a century. Many scholars have argued that the Court has shifted from an approach to statutory interpretation that relied heavily on purposivism—the custom of giving statutory goals weight in interpreting statutes—toward one that relies more heavily on textualism during this period. At the same time, proponents of dynamic statutory interpretation have argued that courts, in many cases, do not so much excavate a statute’s meaning as adapt a statute to contemporary circumstances.