Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Energy and Utilities Law (4)
- Land Use Law (4)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (4)
- Administrative Law (3)
- Natural Resources Law (3)
-
- Agency (2)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Courts (1)
- Earth Sciences (1)
- Environmental Health and Protection (1)
- Environmental Sciences (1)
- Geology (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Legal Studies (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Mineral Physics (1)
- Natural Resource Economics (1)
- Oil, Gas, and Energy (1)
- Physical Sciences and Mathematics (1)
- Social Welfare Law (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
- Water Law (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Indigenous Environmental Network And North Coast Rivers Alliance V. President Donald J. Trump, Et Al. And Tc Energy Corporation, Et Al., Kirsten D. Gerbatsch Ms.
Indigenous Environmental Network And North Coast Rivers Alliance V. President Donald J. Trump, Et Al. And Tc Energy Corporation, Et Al., Kirsten D. Gerbatsch Ms.
Public Land & Resources Law Review
A single cross-border pipeline project has been the epicenter of environmental litigation for the last decade—and it is not over yet. For years, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP and TC Energy have sought to construct and maintain a segment of the Keystone pipeline between the United States and Canada to connect existing pipeline infrastructure and transport crude oil. To do so, the company must first apply and be approved for a permit. Between 2008 and 2012, President Obama twice denied TransCanada Keystone Pipeline and TC Energy’s applications. Then, in 2017 and again in 2019, President Trump unilaterally invited TC Energy’s application …
League Of Conservation Voters V. Trump, Adam W. Johnson Mr.
League Of Conservation Voters V. Trump, Adam W. Johnson Mr.
Public Land & Resources Law Review
A consortium of environmental groups brought suit challenging an executive order opening millions of acres of continental shelf lands to oil and gas leasing. The Court held that the President’s actions exceeded his statutory authority and intruded on Congress’s power under the Property Clause, violating the separation of powers doctrine.
Western Organization Of Resource Councils V. Zinke, Daniel Brister
Western Organization Of Resource Councils V. Zinke, Daniel Brister
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Due to advances in climate science and an increased understanding of coal’s role as a greenhouse gas, Appellant conservation organizations sued the Secretary of Interior for failing to supplement the 1979 Programmatic EIS for the Federal Coal Management Program. The D.C. Circuit Court held neither NEPA nor the APA required a supplemental EIS and that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel the Secretary to prepare one. Expressing sympathy for the Appellants’ position, the D.C. Circuit took the unusual step of offering advice to future plaintiffs on how they might succeed on similar claims.
Wyoming V. Zinke, Jaclyn Van Natta
Wyoming V. Zinke, Jaclyn Van Natta
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Wyoming v. Zinke, the Bureau of Land Management attempted to update a regulation governing hydraulic fracturing from the 1980s, but oil and gas industry companies opposed, and brought suit. The district court held in favor of the industry petitioners, and the Bureau of Land Management and citizen group intervenors appealed. In the wake of appeal, Donald J. Trump became President of the United States. The administration change caused the Bureau of Land Management to alter its position and align with the new administration. Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, via executive order, began rescinding the new fracking regulation, …
Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno
Murray Energy Corporation V. Mccarthy, Sarah M. Danno
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Holding that the widespread effects of environmental regulation on the coal industry constituted sufficient importance, the Northern District of West Virginia ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct analysis on employment loss and plant reduction resulting from regulatory effects. In admonishing the EPA’s inaction, the court ruled that the Agency had a non-discretionary duty to evaluate employment and plant reduction. Furthermore, the court held that the EPA’s attempt to put forth general reports in place of required evaluations was an invalid attempt to circumvent its statutory duty.