Law Commons^™

Some Preliminary Thoughts On Contrasts And Convergence In Environmental And Natural Resources Law, Karin P. Sheldon

The Future of Natural Resources Law and Policy (Summer Conference, June 6-8)

16 pages.

Includes bibliographical references

Environmental Law In The "New" Supreme Court, Robert Abrams

Journal Publications

In the 2006 term the United States Supreme Court issued plenary decisions in four environmental cases. As is usually the case, all four environmental cases that reached the Supreme Court presented nuanced questions of statutory interpretation, most of which were intertwined with administrative law issues. The decisions this term are of unusual importance, as all have significant aspects, either practical, precedential, or attitudinal. Additionally, two of the cases exhibit the 5-4 cleavage, so common in this term's decisions, in which Justice Kennedy is the outcome-determinative swing voter. On unusual occasions there are environmental cases decided by the Supreme Court that …

Massachusetts V. Epa Heats Up Climate Policy No Less Than Administrative Law: A Comment On Professors Watts And Wildermuth, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

In their essay Breaking New Ground on Issues Other than Global Warming, Professors Kathryn A. Watts and Amy J. Wildermuth have presented a thoughtful preliminary analysis of the Supreme Court's handiwork in Massachusetts v. EPA. They are correct that the decision potentially paves new ground in administrative law, particularly with regard to state standing. The Court's approach to review of agency decisions to decline rulemaking petitions is also potentially significant, but perhaps less ground-breaking than they suggest. In the context of climate change policy their assessment of the Court's decision is too modest, however, for Massachusetts virtually ensures federal regulation …

Warming Up To Climate Change Litigation, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

The surprise in Massachusetts v. EPA was not that it was a close, hotly contested case. Rather, the surprise was the facility and ease with which the Court majority dispatched opposing arguments and redefined prior precedents. Not content to widen doctrines on the margins, Justice Stevens' majority opinion blazed a new path through the law of standing and unearthed newfound regulatory authority for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Under the Court's new interpretation, the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or "the Act") provides EPA with roving authority, if not responsibility, to regulate any substance capable of causing or contributing to …