The court upholds the U.S. Forest Service's approval of four timber sales in the Ozark National Forest. A coalition of environmental groups sued the Forest Service to enjoin or set aside the timber sales. The court first holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting its revi...
The court holds that owners of property atop South Mountain in Washington County, Maryland, were not entitled to an increase in the amount awarded them in a condemnation proceeding. The property owners contend that the district court erred in granting the U.S. government's motion in limine seeking t...
The court affirms the denial of landowners' untimely demand for a jury trial on the issue of just compensation in a condemnation proceeding initiated by the United States. The United States was attempting to obtain 42 acres of the landowners' property for the purposes of administering, preserving, a...
The court holds that a district court abused its discretion by abstaining from a case in which landowners challenge, on federal due process and equal protection grounds, a New York land use law restricting development on Long Island. The court first holds that the case did not require abstention on ...
If we want to think about changes in local sustainability over the last 10 years, perhaps the best place to start is with Al Gore. In 1992, just before the Rio Earth Summit and before he was to be tapped as a vice presidential candidate, then-Senator Gore published a treatise on the environment called Earth in the Balance.
The 1999 National Nuclear Security Administration Act (NNSA Act) threatens to reverse 20 years of reforms and court decisions intended to bring the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) into compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The NNSA Act, enacted in the wake of allegations of spying at Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory in New Mexico, established a semi-autonomous agency within DOE—the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The NNSA operates nine laboratories and facilities within the U.S. nuclear weapons complex.
Editors' Summary: In recent years, vindication of private-property rights has been the rallying cry of various citizen groups and politicians who believe that certain regulatory restrictions—especially environmental protection measures—have "gone too far" and that the Fifth Amendment is an insufficient safeguard of private-property rights.
On June 29, 2001, the last day of the October 2000 term, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider "whether the [Ninth Circuit] Court of Appeals properly determined that a temporary moratorium on land development does not constitute a taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the [U.S.] Constitution?" The case, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, provides the Court with an opportunity to clarify its opinions in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v.
While the Republican's Contract With America has disappeared from the political landscape, many of its ideas continue to percolate in the 105th Congress. Development interests continue to promote federal legislation to expand opportunities for "takings" claims against the government. Through such takings claims developers or private landowners seek to be compensated for not polluting or not building on protected land.
Under the public welfare doctrine, certain regulatory crimes require no showing of the traditional mens rea, or "guilty mind," as a predicate to criminal liability. The doctrine has been used to relax intent requirements in criminal statutes when the public welfare is at stake and is predicated upon the fact that the defendant had notice that the dangerous activity is regulated. A majority of courts place the criminal provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) within the public welfare doctrine.