A district court held that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) failed to take a hard look at its decision to deregulate alfalfa genetically engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate—the active ingredient in "RoundUp." Substantial questions exist as to whether the deregulatio...
A district court granted in part and denied in part environmental groups' motion to preliminarily enjoin all logging of suitable spotted owl habitat on private lands in owl circles outside of spotted owl special emphasis areas throughout the state of Washington. The court granted the groups' request...
The court holds that a band of Native Americans has the right to moor commercial fishing vessels at two municipally owned marinas on Lake Michigan. The court first holds that treaties signed in 1836 and 1855 provided for an easement of access to reach traditional fishing grounds, which includes the ...
Editors' Summary: This Article addresses the effect of the U.S. Constitution's Takings Clause on the government's authority to protect environmental resources. An earlier Article, published in the May 1994 of ELR, analyzed bases for government regulation provided by limitations inherent in the property right itself. In contrast, this Article focuses on an emerging doctrine of sustainable use, rooted in background principles of nuisance law and the government's complementary police power.
Editors' Summary: Environmental regulation has come under increasing attack from those who argue that governmental limitations on property use violate constitutional restrictions on regulatory takings of property. The author addresses this controversy by focusing on the background limitations on owners' rights that are inherent in property law itself, as opposed to the external controls that government may impose under the doctrines of police power and nuisance.
Is an intentional temporary deprivation of the use of land not a "temporary taking"? This proposition was asserted by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The Ninth Circuit denied en banc review, despite a strong dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski. Perhaps because it had never explicated the meaning of "temporary taking," and perhaps in part because its interest was kindled by the Kozinski dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari. The question is limited to:
The court holds that the political question doctrine does not bar a federal court from resolving landowners' suits alleging that a state-managed fish pass significantly contributed to beach erosion on their property. The court first holds that the landowners' claims for injunctive relief and damages...
The court affirms an Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision denying a construction company's application for an equitable adjustment for additional costs incurred hauling waste from its construction activities at a U.S. Navy project at the Lajes Air Base on Terceira Island in the Azores. ...
The court holds that the National Park Service's decision to remove a herd of 12 horses from Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court first holds that the plaintiff foundation provided no support for its assertion that the horse...
The court holds that a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regulation that prohibits private landowners in Tennessee and North Carolina from intentionally taking red wolves found on their property unless the wolf is attacking or has attacked a person, livestock, or pets, is a valid exercise of fede...