Search

Circuit courts are divided as to whether Section 602 of Title VI of the 4,62 Civil Rights Act creates a private right of action enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the past, many environmental justice groups have brought their claims under Section 602, since it is easier to prove disparate impact as opposed to direct discrimination. However, recent trends in Section I983 jurisprudence seem to indicate that unless the statute expressly creates a private right of action, it is usually not enforceable under Section 1983. Moreover, courts have muddled substantive due process claims related to "state-created dangers" by adding subjective thresholds (e.g., private actor requirements, "shock the conscience" standards, and mens rea requirements). The Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") allows individuals to challenge agency compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and seek judicial review of agency decisions implicating environmental justice issues; therefore, NEPA challenges through the APA would be an appropriate alternative to Section I983 actions. In addition to the procedural mechanisms available through the APA, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 ("IRA") includes several sources of funding dedicated to addressing environmental justice issues throughout the country. With a clear mandate from Congress, NEPA challenges will be the most effective strategy to address environmental justice concerns along the U.S.-Mexico border where most environmental justice issues are linked to major federal actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in WildEarth Guardians v. United States Forest Service, where the court affirmed the dismissal of a case claiming NEPA and NFMA violations regarding grazing management and wolf-livestock conflicts. Topics include the interpretation of Article III standing in environmental cases, the role of third-party actions in establishing standing, and the Ninth Circuit's analysis of procedural rights claims under NEPA.

The article discusses how Fifth Circuit judges' opinions in the case of Rollerson v. Brazos River Harbor Navigation District raise doubts about the viability of environmental justice suits.topics include that case involves claims of discriminatory land-acquisition practices in a port-expansion initiative and highlights the tension between environmental justice and the National Environmental Policy Act.

The article examines shortcomings in the intersection of the National Historic Preservation Act's (NHPA) Environmental Impact Analysis (EIS) and the National Environmental Policy Act's (NEPA) Section 106 analysis. It discusses the failure of the two laws to protect environmental and cultural resources, consult with Native American Tribes, engage the public and coordinate processes between federal, state and tribal offices. Suggestions for the future intersection of NHPA and NEPA are outlined.

The article reports that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a rulemaking that comprehensively changed the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Topics include ensure that agencies apply NEPA in a manner that reduces unnecessary burdens and delays as much as possible; and use its statutory authority to interpret NEPA with regulations shrink the scope of an environmental impact statement (EIS) by omitting the cumulative effects analysis.

The article focuses on elevated concern for the environment and natural resources led to the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). It mentions federal agency to develop the required NEPA Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"), and setting hard limits on the page length of EISs. It also mentions former U.S. President Donald Trump Administration rulemaking through judicial review and reversing the changes.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ushered in the modern era of environmental law. Thanks to its environmental impact statement (EIS) provision, it remains, by far, the most litigated environmental statute. Many administrations have sought to weaken the law. The Trump administration, for example, put into place regulations that strictly limit the EIS process, which the Biden administration seems poised to roll back. For the most part, however, NEPA has shown remarkable staying power and resilience since its passage just over fifty years ago. As a result, its legislative history remains relevant. But the accepted history of NEPA is deeply flawed. By bringing the history to light, this Article makes three contributions. First, relying on both original primary sources and a thorough review of the literature, we provide a nuanced and engaging history of the EIS provision, correcting common misconceptions of the accepted story. Second, we show why understanding this more accurate history of the Act's key provision can rebut major threats to NEPA and the regulations that govern it, such as those introduced during the Trump administration. Third, our granular history of NEPA provides an ideal experiment to test the accuracy of traditional canons of legislative history. We find that most canons fail to recognize the most critical aspects of NEPA's history. Positive political theory-derived canons, on the other hand, most accurately capture the actual legislative history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the legislative and judicial history of the Roadless Rule in the U.S. and its application to the Alaskan Tongass National Forest. Topics include the regulated deforestation in the country, the adverse effects of the illegal logging industry on forests, and how an Alaska-specific rule breaches the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit in the case National Wildlife Federation v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation which held that agencies are not bound by either the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when evaluating and approving these response plans. It also mentions need to prepare an environmental impact statement as per NEPA.

The article focuses on administration of U.S. President Joe Biden should prioritize renewable energy development on public lands contend with the regulatory burdens of longstanding environmental laws such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). It also mentions framework amply supports renewable energy development on federal public lands. It also mentions successful adaptation to climate change will require public land.

The article proposes a citizen suit amendment to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to prevent state interference in the NEPA environmental review process in the U.S. Topics discussed include ways for plaintiffs to challenge NEPA violations using the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the aim of the suggested amendment to authorize courts to grant injunctive relief prior to the final agency action of an actor, and the uncertainty of courts on the rights provided by NEPA.

Cities are embracing green spaces and environmental amenities. But as government and private investment surges into urban neighborhoods, residents of historically disinvested communities are evicted and displuced to make room for a wealthier-and often whiter-demographic. The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to prepare an in-depth environmental impact statement for proposed actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Federally funded redevelopment projects contribute directly to the powerfully displacing.forces of gentrification, and environmental impact statements for such projects should affirmatively account for the indirect displacement effects caused by that investment. Articulating a clear legal obligation that federal agencies must consider the specific social and cultural harms associated with gentrification would provide communities with another avenue to address displacement concerns and to jbrce agencies to consider alternative options and mitigation strategies that could alleviate the negative impacts ofgentrification. This Comment demonstrates that agencies should be required to consider indirect urban displacement associated with gentrification in federally mandated environmental impact statements. It discusses the statutory framework of NEPA and its relevance to urban redevelopment projects. It then explores the treatment of urban displacement in NEPA case law and considers the causal relationship between urban reinvestment and indirect displacement. It thenfocuses on how cumulative impacts Of past federal and private actions have contributed to the heightened susceptibility of many communities, especially Afiican American communities, to displacement pressures and how the federal environmental review process can provide a tool to combat the inequities of the urban landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Administrative agencies routinely predict the effects of their policy decisions. Unsurprisingly, they err, sometimes with catastrophic consequences. The cost of administrative prediction failure has been paid in lives, devastated ecosystems, untold sums of squandered tax dollars, and foregone wealth. As familiar names like Deepwater Horizon, Flint, and Fukushima attest, even in advanced industrialized societies, environmental policy remains a domain in which administrative prediction failure is strongly felt. A crucial task for administrative law is to reduce the toll of such bureaucratic mistakes. One means is an administrative bulkhead rule: a rule that circumscribes administrative power where the costs of prediction failure are greatest. Like collision bulkheads in ships, such rules cabin the downside risk of prediction failure. This Article confronts the problem of agency prediction failure and the applicability of a bulkhead rule under one of the United States' most important administrative-environmental laws, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In passing NEPA, Congress attempted to impose analytical rigor and environmental solicitude on federal policy making. Today however, courts and agencies interpret NEPA to impose no coherent instructions regarding how they are to approach decisions that pose low probability but catastrophic risks to the environment. The prevailing interpretation is wrong. This Article interprets NEPA to provide a "bulkhead rule." Surveying the statutory text and the voluminous case law interpreting it, this Article argues the statute's scope and significance thresholds are subject to raised administrative-review requirements where actions have potential non-localized impacts. Uncertainty is treated differently depending on the cost of an agency mistake: where risks are not localized, and can imperil systemically important natural systems, the law demands deeper scrutiny and onerous procedural checks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that the U.S. federal government's fiduciary duty to protect public lands necessitates the creation of a more stable policy structure that places more stringent limits on executive authority over natural resource management. Topics covered include history of public lands management, history of the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act and how externality problems complicate federal land management.

Mega satellite constellations, such as SpaceX's Starlink, have the ability to connect humans across the globe in a way never before possible. However, the unprecedented deployment of tens of thousands of satellites into orbit around Earth creates the risk of altering the night sky for astronomers and the public for decades to come, as well as the risk of polluting the environment through the use of toxic satellite components. The Federal Communications Commission considers commercial-satellite projects categorically excluded from environmental review despite the National Environmental Policy Act's requirement that federal agencies review projects for their environmental effects. A court would likely strike down the FCC's categorical exclusion for its lack of specificity and find that the agency is required to review commercial-satellite projects since they are likely to have direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the environment. To prevent a challenge in court, the FCC should use NASA's satellite project review model and complete an environmental assessment of commonly used satellite components so that future commercial-satellite projects using those components do not need to go through an environmental assessment during their application process. This would create standards in the commercial-satellite industry that promote economic growth and stability while complying with Congress's mandate to the federal government to proactively consider the environmental impacts of its actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses recent decisions by the D.C. Circuit court, which developed how the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) must consider the climate impacts of gas projects when conducting reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). These include the court's ruling in Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and in Birckhead v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Since President Trump took (#ce in 2017, the Bureau of Land Management and other executive agencies have pursued expansive and aggressive development of fossil filel resources on public lands. This development will add to the United States' already large contribution to climate change. Unfortunately, those seeking to convince the U.S. government to mitigate the nation's contribution to climate change havefaced barriers through all branches of government. Congress has tailed to pass comprehensive legislation to address climate change, and most of the progress made through the executive branch has been undone by President Trump. That leaves the courts-bill how promising of an avenue is thejudicial branch for those seeking to mitigate climate change? While federal courts have historically declined to provide broad relief in cases related to climate change, a promising trend has emerged in the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and several district courts within the Tenth Circuit are holding the Bureau of Land Management and other executive agencies accountable for failing to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act when enabling fossil fuel development. Although the relief these courts can provide is limited to the challenged agency decisions before them and by the procedural nature of the statute, this line of cases has potential to limit the executive branch's aggressive pursuit of fossil filel development and thus slow the United States' contribution to climate change. This Note presents a case study of the trend in the Tenth Circuit and argues that it cannot be explained by precedent orjudicial ideology. Rather. the five keyfactors explaining the trend are rooted in the National Environmental Policy Act'sfundamental purposes and requirements. After introducing the primary cases within this trend and outlining its key factors, this Note provides reasons for caution and suggests litigation strategies for those seeking to capitalize on the trend to limit further contriblitions to climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The past year was unusual due to major efforts to reform renewable energy and environmental policy laws that will affect the cost and environmental effects of renewable energy and natural gas facilities. Both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the President's Council on Environmental Quality started to reform the 40‐year‐old Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) and the 50‐year‐old National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), respectively. Both laws have had a good run; however, today's electricity and natural gas markets—as well as viewpoints regarding the use of fossil fuels, renewable energy, and climate change—are very different from what they were when Congress passed both bills. The reforms may take away the competitive advantages long enjoyed by new renewable energy projects that receive state subsidies, lower the cost of payments to wind and solar power by electric utilities, and roll back a growing trend calling for the effects of federal actions on climate change. All the while, electric battery storage is beginning to establish a beachhead in wholesale electricity markets, which could accelerate the clean energy transition and have significant implications for the renewable natural gas, hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage technologies initiatives being proposed by the oil and gas industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on decision of several U.S. court cases related to environmental law. The case discussed include Wise v. DOT on operational right-of-way are categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and preparing environmental impact statement (EIS), Juliana v. United States on violations of their 5th Amendment substantive due process right to a climate system and Renewable Fuels Ass'n et al. v. EPA on ability of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

An essay is presented concerning former U.S. senator from Washington Henry "Scoop" Jackson, his role in the formation of U.S. legislation known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and a provision within the legislation requiring environmental impact statements (EIS) prior to the construction of federal and state projects. It focuses upon Jackson's opposition to a designed diversion of water from the Columbia River to the Colorado River Basin known as the Pacific Southwest Water Plan and the Central Arizona Project.

The National Environmental Policy Act requires many federal actions to be accompanied by a "detailed statement" on the expected environmental impacts of the action and its alternatives. But despite half a century since its passage, agencies still lack clear, reasoned guidance as to (1) what kinds of impacts must be considered, (2) how thoroughly those impacts must be analyzed, and (3) what kinds of alternatives to the federal action must be also assessed. The existing literature regarding these three "stopping-point" problems has largely overlooked one possible approach: to assess the expected benefits and costs of gathering more information through value-ofinformation analysis. Such a framework does not provide easy answers, but at least gives a basis for agencies and courts to reason about what environmental disclosures should be required, and why. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on several U.S. Supreme Court decisions on proper judicial response to requests for permanent injunctions where necessary to abate violations of substantive environmental laws. Topics discussed include Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill relied on separation of powers concerns in finding that the jeopardy prohibition of the Endangered Species Act, Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo on legal remedies and injunctive relief in cases under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.