A district court held that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel bar individuals' trespass, nuisance, and negligence claims against numerous oil, coal, electric, and chemical companies for damages stemming from Hurricane Katrina. The individuals asserted that the companies' activitie...
A district court held that Washington state must establish reasonably available control technology (RACT) for greenhouse gas emissions. Based on its plain language, the RACT provision contained in Washington's federally approved SIP is not discretionary and requires the state's agencies to estab...
A California court held that the California Air Resources Board's "functional equivalent document" and scoping plan to reduce greenhouse gases as it relates to cap and trade complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. The court therefore lifted its May 20, 2011, peremptory writ of man...
A district court held that the FWS violated NEPA, but not the ESA, when it issued a special rule that specifies the protective mechanisms that apply to the polar bear as a result of its threatened status. In May 2008, the FWS listed the polar bear as threatened under the ESA. The Service then issued...
Perhaps Congress should throw up its hands and move on to something more manageable than global climate change. Richard Lazarus asserts that the challenges of enacting effective national strategies for mitigating and adapting to changes in the Earth's climate are not just "wicked," but "super wicked," meaning they defy resolution.
Editor's Summary: In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its most recent pronouncement on the executive foreign affairs preemption doctrine in American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi. In this Article, Kimberly Breedon argues that lower courts are prone to overbroad applications of Garamendi because the Court assumed the presence of three elements when it developed the standard for executive foreign affairs preemption of state law: (1) formal source law; (2) nexus to a foreign entity; and (3) indication of intent by the executive to preempt the state law under challenge.
A Virginia appellate court held that under Virginia law, an insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify an energy company in an underlying lawsuit brought by a native Alaskan village for damages allegedly caused by global warming through the emission of greenhouse gases. The relevant policies onl...