The court holds that a Native American council and an environmental group lack standing under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to challenge a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order authorizing a Canadian power generator to sell power in the Unit...
Editors' Summary: Property owners often respond to solid and hazardous waste contamination of their properties by cleaning up the contamination and then seeking reimbursement of cleanup costs from responsible parties under federal and state hazardous waste laws. RCRA is one such law; however, RCRA §7002 does not explicitly provide for recovery of damages. A court faced with a RCRA §7002 citizen suit to recover cleanup costs must imply a private cause of action for damages. This Article addresses the availability of a private cause of action for damages under RCRA §7002.
The government use of compulsory purchase and land use control powers appears to be increasing worldwide as competition for useable and livable space increases. The need for large and relatively undeveloped space for agriculture and conservation purposes often competes with the need for shelter and the commercial and industrial development accompanying such development for employment, product production and distribution, and other largely urban uses.
Editors' Summary: Property rights advocates implicitly complained in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon that a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation that aimed to protect endangered and threatened species by defining "harm" to include habitat modification impinged on their rights as private landowners by asking them to share with the government responsibility for protecting such species. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as reasonable given the relevant language of the Endangered Species Act.
The bedrock notion that courts should, in the overwhelming majority of cases, defer to lawmakers is currently under attack in the nation's courts, commentary, and classrooms. Leading the way are several U.S. Supreme Court Justices who, in cases involving the U.S. Commerce Clause, Takings Clause, and §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, are much more willing than their immediate predecessors to second-guess the motives and tactics of elected and appointed officials at all levels of government.
Editors' Summary: Although most talk in terms of wildlife protection seems to focus on the operation of the ESA, there are a host of other federal and state laws designed to protect wildlife from the impacts of resource-development projects—before the species become threatened or endangered.
The court rules that Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act shields from public disclosure comprehensive reports, prepared and provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by a nonprofit consortium of the nuclear utility industry, concerning the safety and reliability of operations at n...
A district court denies property owners' motions to sanction the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for violating discovery orders in the owners' toxic-tort suit against DOE contractors that operate the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons production facility. The court also denies, for the most part, the contr...
The Court holds that the issue of liability in a developer's regulatory takings claim against a city was properly submitted to a jury. After the city imposed more rigorous demands each time it denied five proposals to develop a 37.6-acre oceanfront parcel in Monterey, California, the developer filed...
The court holds that the amount a bankrupt casino paid to the casino's previous owner for environmental remediation does not offset a debt owed the previous owner. The casino was to make monthly payments to the previous owner under the terms of a promissory note. It suspended payment, however, after...