The court holds that the Federal Highway Administration's (FHwA's) approval of a highway project in West Virginia violated the Department of Transportation Act §4(f) historic sites review requirement. The court first holds that the plain language of §4(f)'s regulations, 23 C.F.R. §771.135(b) and ...
The court holds that the U.S. Forest Service complied with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it issued a permit to a Colorado ski resort for the expansion of a ski area within the White River National Forest. The court first holds that ne...
The court holds that although the U.S. Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it failed to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) necessary for certain timber sales in the Nez Perce National Forest in Idaho, the Forest Service's subsequent pre...
The court holds that the Price-Anderson Act does not expressly prohibit the Navajo tribal court from determining its jurisdiction over tribal members' personal injury and wrongful death claims arising from uranium mining activities on the Navajo Nation Reservation. The court first holds that defenda...
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.