On March 14, 2016, two new federal rules went into effect that could change the way in which the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is implemented throughout the United States. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) finalized these rules to update the regulatory provisions on which the agencies rely when fulfilling their duties to carry out the ESA.

In general, the ESA aims to conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which those species depend. Section 4 of the ESA directs the FWS and the NMFS to identify and list endangered and threatened species along with a designated critical habitat for each listed species. Once a species has been listed as endangered or threatened, it is protected under various provisions of the ESA. Specifically, Section 7 requires all federal agencies to consult with FWS and NMFS before taking any action to ensure that such action, funding, or authorization “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species”. These Section 7 consultations are designed to identify and limit adverse effects of federal action on listed species or their habitat. Section 9 prohibits any public or private entity from “taking” an endangered species or undertaking a wide range of other activities that could harm the species. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that Section 9 can apply very broadly, prohibiting the modification of critical habitat that might have any adverse effect on the listed species.

The Clean Power Plan and its surrounding litigation has quickly become one of the hottest topics both inside and outside the legal world. News that the U.S. Supreme Court had granted a stay of the Clean Power Plan on February 9, 2016 spread like wildfire, but many recent followers are unaware of just how long and polemic the history of litigation over the Clean Power Plan has been.
Given the considerably strong interest, this article provides a short history of the litigation surrounding the Clean Power Plan, along with links to motions, briefs, and orders, dating back to when Murray Energy Corporation filed the first challenge to the proposed rule. The history is actually anything but short and is also far from being over.

In the wake of the UK’s more prescriptive approach towards sentencing adopted in the recent Definitive Sentencing Guidelines which came into force on 1 February 2016, the UK Sentencing Council has now turned its focus to the guidelines regarding the credit available for the entering of a guilty plea in criminal cases. The Sentencing Council entered into consultation on its proposed new guideline “Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Guideline: Consultation” on 11 February 2016, with responses due by the 5 May 2016.

In order to reduce the number of unnecessary trials, offenders are incentivised under UK law, to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity and may receive up to one third credit off any potential sentence. However, the Sentencing Council is consulting on whether further clarification is required on how this principle is applied in practice.

US EPA has agreed to promulgate financial assurance rules for hard rock mining companies by December 1, 2017.  Specifically, the agencies requirements will apply to facilities which extract or process metals (e.g., copper, gold, iron, lead, magnesium, molybdenum, silver, uranium, and zinc).  The financial assurance requirements will obligate companies performing environmental cleanup to provide a standby financing mechanism (bond, insurance, or letter of credit) consistent with the US EPA project remedy cost.  The agency has also identified three other industries—chemical manufacturing, electricity generation, and petroleum and coal products manufacturing—that could eventually become subject to financial assurance requirements.