You have just received a telephone call from an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official asking whether your company or trade association is interested in participating in a regulatory negotiation to develop a new or amended regulation that the Agency will issue under an environmental statute. Or your client asks your advice on whether to participate. What will you say? It is increasingly likely that you may receive such a call.
Editors' Summary: The European Community (EC or the Community), in building its supranational political structure in preparation for full economic integration, increasingly regulates the conduct of individuals and corporations and obligates member nations to implement its regulatory decisions. This regulation is most evident in the environmental arena, and perhaps most significant to those doing business in Europe.
Editors' Summary: On the last day of its 1992 Spring Term, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its long-awaited decision on land-use regulation in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 22 ELR 21104. In Lucas, a 5-4 majority of the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment requires states to pay compensation when regulations enacted for public purposes, such as environmental protection, deprive landowners of all economically beneficial uses of their property.
Editors' Summary: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council evoked great interest during the U.S. Supreme Court's 1991-92 Term, attracting dozens of amicus briefs and producing speculation about whether the case would be a referendum on the entire environmental movement. In Lucas, the Court reversed the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling that no compensation is due under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when a landowner's private use threatens serious public harm.
Editors' Summary: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council evoked great interest during the U.S. Supreme Court's 1991-92 Term, attracting dozens of amicus briefs and producing speculation about whether the case would be a referendum on the entire environmental movement. In Lucas, the Court reversed the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling that no compensation is due under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when a landowner's private use threatens serious public harm.
In negotiating a comprehensive trade accord, the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States have taken an important step to link and boost their economies. Although many believe the new pact — the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — would benefit the United States, NAFTA may run into formidable opposition in Congress on ecological grounds.1 This opposition has been brought to light by numerous environmental and consumer groups which have questioned whether NAFTA does enough to protect the environment and public health.
The policy that a violator should not gain financially from noncompliance with environmental regulations appeals to regulators, the regulated community, and the public. From the government's point of view, the concept provides a basis for treating all companies equally. From the regulated community's point of view, no competitor can gain an economic advantage over another, provided the government applies the concept fairly. From the public's point of view, the application of the concept promotes compliance because no one has a financial incentive to delay compliance.
Editors' Summary: The responsible corporate officer doctrine establishes that individuals, including management of a legal entity, may be prosecuted as "persons" within the meaning of several federal environmental statutes, if the facts so warrant. Federal environmental statutes do not require a showing that the person being prosecuted as a corporate officer knowingly violated the applicable law.
Mexico's enactment in March 1988 of the General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection under then-President Miguel de la Madrid marked the beginning of an ambitious environmental program that is being carried forth with equal or greater vigor by the present administration of President Carlos Salinas de Gortari.
Editors' Summary: The absence of a certain threshold for admitting scientific information into evidence permits many courts to admit as scientific evidence the testimony of experts that does not meet scientific standards for reliability. The validity of an expert's opinion admitted as scientific evidence in cases involving issues on the frontiers of science, including toxic-tort and other environmental litigations, often determines the outcome of those cases.