Environmentalists are no strangers to disappointment in the U.S. Supreme Court, but the recent case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) is particularly disappointing. First, it might be said that the impact of the opinion, in circumstances in which legislative amendment is virtually impossible, may be the most devastating judicial opinion affecting the environment ever.
Does the use by migratory birds of isolated, intrastate waters establish enough of a connection to "navigable waters" and interstate commerce to permit federal regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the U.S. Commerce Clause? The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinks so, but courts and commentators have not been entirely sympathetic to the Corps' so-called migratory bird rule. The Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thomas (in a dissent from denial of certiorari) have rejected such a broad jurisdictional reach in no uncertain terms.
The court holds that the New York Air Pollution Mitigation Law is preempted by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and violates the U.S. Commerce Clause. Under Air Pollution Mitigation Law §66-k, an electric generator is assessed an offset penalty when it sells a sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowance to a generator i...
The court affirmed a lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a power company charged with modifying its power plants without first obtaining permits in violation of the Clean Air Act's (CAA's) prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions. The company updated its coal-fired ge...
The court upholds the dismissal of individuals' employment retaliation suits against the state of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management concerning potential Solid Waste Disposal Act violations. The state has not waived its right to sovereign immunity, and the U.S. ...
The court vacates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's equipment replacement provision (ERP) rule, which expanded the routine maintenance, repair, and replacement exclusion from new source review (NSR) requirements by allowing sources to avoid NSR when replacing equipment that does not exceed ...
The D.C. Circuit granted in part environmental groups' petition for review of a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate "hot spot" analyses undertaken as part of the State Implementation Plan for National Ambient Air Quality Standards transportation proje...
A district court dismissed environmental groups' claim that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has never undertaken the study of coal mining wastes requested by Congress and, accordingly, has failed to determine whether such wastes should be regulated as "hazardous" under Subtitle C of t...
The court dismisses a property owner's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), and state common-law claims against prior owners of the property and a state agency for r...
Editors' Summary: Until recently, the regulation of chemical carcinogens and the regulation of radiological carcinogens developed independently. Different governmental agencies operating under different statutory directives were responsible for addressing the dangers from these carcinogens. As a result, different policies and practices were developed. This Article explores these differences and the record on resolving them. It first examines the history of federal regulation of chemical and radiological carcinogens and summarizes EPA's approach to risk assessments for them.