Article III of the Constitution gives federal courts the power to decide only cases and controversies, and courts understand that to mean there must be a dispute between adverse parties. This constitutional requirement means that in order to bring a suit challenging government action, the plaintiff must have “standing,” meaning that plaintiff must really be
Environmental Blog
Blog Authors
Latest from Environmental Blog
Evolving Common Law Theories in Environmental Litigation
Before the enactment of CERCLA in 1980, claims alleging injury as a result of contamination were usually brought under theories of negligence and nuisance. Those claims were largely replaced by CERCLA claims because CERCLA did not require proof of negligence or proof of causation. A recent trend in environmental litigation has a return to common…
If You Own Property Near a Superfund Site, the 6th Circuit Just Sent You an Important Message: Be a Nice Neighbor or Else.
In Gould Electronics v Livingston County Road Commission, 2022 WL 1467650 (6th Cir. May 10, 2022), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a claim between the responsible party at a Superfund Site (Gould) and a neighbor (Livingston). The main subject of the dispute was who was responsible for the contamination on the Livingston property. …
Environmental Justice in the Environmental Review Process: Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice v Federal Aviation Administration (9th Cir. November 18, 2021)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice v Federal Aviation Administration reads like an ordinary environmental review decision. The issue was whether the agency took the required “hard look” at the potential environmental impacts and the court said that it did. It is the dissent that should…
The Government Can Regulate Use of Property, but Cannot Take Property Without Paying: Supreme Court Addresses the Line Between Regulating and Taking
In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (decided June 23, 2021) the Supreme Court decided that a regulation that required agricultural employers to allow union representatives to access their property for up to 3 hours per day for 120 days per year, was a per se taking, reversing a 9th Circuit decision that held this regulation…
Standing to Sue: Can Environmental Organizations Create Standing to Sue – PETA v State Zoological Park
For an organization to sue to redress a perceived wrong, the organization must demonstrate that it has standing to sue, meaning that it is the proper party to bring the claim. One of the key requirements of standing is that the plaintiff must show that he or she will be or is likely to be…
Two Recent Appellate Division Decisions Reject Segmentation Arguments: It Cannot be Segmentation Unless There is a Plan
Two recent Appellate Division decisions addressed segmentation claims and concluded that there cannot be segmentation unless there is a plan. Under SEQRA (the State Environmental Quality Review Act), it is illegal to take a project that may have significant impacts and break it in to smaller parts (segments) for environmental review purposes, each of which…
New Caselaw Highlights the Boundary Between Environmental Law and Corporate Law
A recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the boundary between environmental law and corporate law. US v Sterling Centercorp Inc., 2020 WL 5885920 (10/5/20). The case arose out of a Superfund Site in California that was the subject of a number of corporate transactions. Defendant Sterling was the corporate parent of…
Chesapeake Action Network v EPA: Court Tells EPA to Reconsider Rule Because Petitioners Did Not Have a Fair Opportunity to Comment
It is not unusual for a developing rule or other agency action to be something of a moving target, with an agency responding to comments in a way that leaves some in the regulated community complaining that they did not receive the required fair opportunity to comment before the rule or agency action became final.…
Environmental Impact Statements: Which Effects of an Action are Impacts that must be Considered?
The recent decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Center for Biological Diversity v US Army Corps of Engineers, 2019 WL 5690619 (Nov. 4, 2019) concluded that impacts of an action that are “at most, tenuously caused” are not impacts that must be considered in preparing an environmental impact statement. The case arose…