Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Environmental Law (14)
- Administrative Law (13)
- Natural Resources Law (12)
- Land Use Law (10)
- Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law (9)
-
- Energy and Utilities Law (7)
- Animal Law (6)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (4)
- Water Law (4)
- Courts (3)
- Supreme Court of the United States (3)
- Torts (3)
- Agriculture Law (2)
- Civil Procedure (2)
- Common Law (2)
- Cultural Heritage Law (2)
- Government Contracts (2)
- Jurisdiction (2)
- Legislation (2)
- Science and Technology Law (2)
- State and Local Government Law (2)
- Admiralty (1)
- Business Organizations Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Gaming Law (1)
- Judges (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Keyword
-
- BLM (4)
- APA (3)
- Administrative Procedure Act (3)
- Environment (3)
- NEPA (3)
-
- Arbitrary and capricious (2)
- Bureau of Land Management (2)
- California (2)
- DOI (2)
- EPA (2)
- Endangered (2)
- Endangered Species Act (2)
- Environmental (2)
- Environmental law (2)
- Fish and Wildlife Service (2)
- Law (2)
- National Environmental Policy Act (2)
- Service (2)
- Species (2)
- Standing (2)
- Threatened (2)
- Tribe (2)
- Trump (2)
- USFS (2)
- Zinke (2)
- 2001 Roadless Rule (1)
- 401 (1)
- ARCO; restoration damages (1)
- Abalone (1)
- Administrative Procedure (1)
Articles 1 - 17 of 17
Full-Text Articles in Agency
West Virginia V. Epa, Amanda Spear, Amanda Spear
West Virginia V. Epa, Amanda Spear, Amanda Spear
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The EPA created the Clean Power Plan in an effort to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated by coal-fired power plants. The EPA determined that the Best System of Emission Reduction for existing coal-fired power plants included generation shifting methods, meaning a shift from coal to cleaner sources. The Supreme Court held, under the major questions doctrine, that Congress had not intended for the EPA to use generation shifting methods for the Best System of Emission Reduction and that the EPA had exceeded its authority in doing so. This note will explore how the decision may impact administrative …
Friends Of The Earth V. Haaland Case Summary, Valan Anthos
Friends Of The Earth V. Haaland Case Summary, Valan Anthos
Public Land & Resources Law Review
A federal district court vacated the U.S.’s largest offshore oil and gas lease sale ever because of an inadequate NEPA analysis. The court found that the BOEM’s decision to exclude estimations of reductions in foreign oil consumption if no lease took place was arbitrary and capricious.
Montana Wildlife Federation V. Bernhardt, Henry D. O'Brien
Montana Wildlife Federation V. Bernhardt, Henry D. O'Brien
Public Land & Resources Law Review
A federal court in Montana vacated the lease sale of several large oil and gas developments in Montana and Wyoming because BLM’s revised guidance documents, which facilitated the lease sales, failed to prioritize development outside of sage-grouse habitat, as required by BLM land use plans. BLM adopted the prioritization requirement in 2015 as part of an effort to prevent the sage-grouse from being listed under the Endangered Species Act. The court held BLM violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act when it essentially eliminated the prioritization requirement and approved the lease sales without properly amending the land use plans.
Hoopa Valley Tribe V. Ferc, Fredrick Aaron Rains
Hoopa Valley Tribe V. Ferc, Fredrick Aaron Rains
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, the Hoopa Valley Tribe challenged the intentional and continual delay of state water quality certification review of water discharged from a series of dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the states of Oregon and California, and PacifiCorp, a hydroelectric operator, were implementing an administrative scheme designed to circumvent a one-year temporal requirement for review imposed on states by the Clean Water Act. This scheme allowed PacifiCorp to operate the series of dams for over a decade without proper state water quality certification. The United States …
Crow Indian Tribe V. United States, Hallee Kansman
Crow Indian Tribe V. United States, Hallee Kansman
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The protection status of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear continues to elicit debate and find its way into the courtroom. In Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, for the second time in the last decade, a court held the Service’s attempt to delist the Yellowstone Grizzly arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, the court found the Service’s evaluation of remnant populations, recalibration, and genetic health deficient. This case demonstrates the importance in and the resilient motivation behind preserving grizzly bear populations and genetics. As the practice of delisting a species under the Endangered Species Act continues, this case will provide important …
California Sea Urchin Commission V. Bean, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers
California Sea Urchin Commission V. Bean, Thomas C. Mooney-Myers
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In California Sea Urchin Commission v. Bean, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to end an experimental sea otter colony and translocation program. Commercial fishing groups sought reversal of the decision due to their interest in maintaining the translocation program which reduced otter predation on commercially valuable shellfish. While the Ninth Circuit held the group had standing, it then applied the Chevron test and determined the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Buffalo Field Campaign V. Zinke, Hallee C. Kansman
Buffalo Field Campaign V. Zinke, Hallee C. Kansman
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Despite years of litigation and legislation, the protection status of bison in and around Yellowstone National Park remains unsettled. Buffalo Field Campaign, a non-profit group, has spent decades spearheading the fight to list the species as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Buffalo Field Campaign v. Zinke tests the scope of agency directives and the strictness of the statutory language which guides agency actions.
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.
Atlantic Richfield Company V. Montana Second Judicial District Court, Molly Kelly
Atlantic Richfield Company V. Montana Second Judicial District Court, Molly Kelly
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Landowners in Opportunity, Montana sought restoration damages from ARCO, Anaconda Copper Mining Company’s successor, to their property from over a century of processing ore at the Anaconda Smelter. ARCO argued that CERCLA preempted and barred any claim for restoration damages. The Montana Supreme Court held: landowners could bring their state common law claims seeking restoration damages; the state district court had subject matter jurisdiction; and landowners’ proposed restoration fund did not challenge EPA’s selected remedy under CERCLA.
National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack
National Association Of Manufacturers V. Department Of Defense, Summer L. Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In an attempt to provide consistency to the interpretation and application of the statutory phrase “waters of the United States,” as used in the Clean Water Act, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers together passed the WOTUS Rule. Unfortunately, the Rule has created more confusion than clarity, resulting in a number of lawsuits challenging substantive portions of the Rule’s language. National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense did not address those substantive challenges, but instead determined whether those claims challenging the Rule must be filed in federal district courts or federal courts of appeals. In its decision, the …
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, …
Mays V. City Of Flint, Michigan, Nathan A. Burke
Mays V. City Of Flint, Michigan, Nathan A. Burke
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Mays v. City of Flint Michigan, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality employees removed a class action against them in the Michigan state court to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute. This court ruled in favor of the residents of Flint, determining that the federal officer removal statute did not give the federal court jurisdiction over a state agency simply because the agency must follow federal rules. The court held that Michigan Department of Environmental Quality employees could not have been “acting under” the federal government even though the state agency’s enforcement authority could be trumped by the …
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Lowell J. Chandler
Center For Biological Diversity V. Jewell, Lowell J. Chandler
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The ESA protects threatened or endangered species, and species likely to become threatened or endangered within the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of their range. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona overturned a Fish and Wildlife Service policy defining the significant portion of range language in the ESA. The policy interpretation limited ESA protections to apply only when a species faced risk of extinction throughout its entire range. The court deemed this policy impermissible because it effectively rendered the significant portion of range language meaningless. …
Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack
Lewis V. Clarke, Summer L. Carmack
Public Land & Resources Law Review
One manner in which Indian tribes exercise their inherent sovereignty is by asserting sovereign immunity. In Lewis v. Clarke, the Court decided that the sovereign immunity extended to instrumentalities of tribes did not further extend to tribal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The Court acknowledged the concerns of the lower court, namely, the possibility of setting a precedent allowing future plaintiffs to sidestep a tribe’s sovereign immunity by suing a tribal employee in his individual capacity. However, the Supreme Court ultimately felt that the immunity of tribal employees should not exceed the immunity extended to state …
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. V. Pritzker, Caitlin Buzzas
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. V. Pritzker, Caitlin Buzzas
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Pritzker, the Ninth Circuit dealt with the conflict of science in making legal and policy decisions. NMFS was held to a stringent mitigation standard to protect marine mammals against the Navy’s use of LFA sonar for military operations. In this decision the court held that agencies are required to apply the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals in these types of operations and agencies must listen to their own experts when making these decisions.
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
Pit River Tribe V. Bureau Of Land Management, 793 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2015), Kathryn S. Ore
Public Land & Resources Law Review
In Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained the correct application of the zone of interests test and further solidified the importance of proper NEPA and NHPA analysis in geothermal leasing. The court reaffirmed that the BLM and the Forest Service must conduct additional cultural and environmental analysis when granting lease extensions under the Geothermal Steam Act. Furthermore, it rejected the BLM’s decision to grant forty-year lease continuations to unproven geothermal leases by treating them as a unit rather than individually.
High Country Conservation Advocates V. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), Kathryn S. Ore
High Country Conservation Advocates V. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014), Kathryn S. Ore
Public Land & Resources Law Review
High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Service concerns the United States Forest Service’s and the Bureau of Land Management’s authorizations of on-the-ground mining exploration activities in the Sunset Roadless Area of western Colorado. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado’s holding has far-reaching consequences for federal agencies’ analysis and disclosure of impacts on the climate under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). In addition to bolstering the Plaintiffs’ recent successes at establishing legal standing to challenge federal agencies’ disclosures and analyses of impacts on the climate under NEPA, High Country is the first case to …