The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit, more commonly referred to simply as the D.C. Circuit, has
a number of forthcoming environmental cases which could establish important
legal precedent for the future. While the court is capable of adding more cases
to its calendar in the future, there are already a number of high-profile legal
disputes which are brewing and worthy of the public’s attention.
Environmentalism is on the mind of everyone
these days, particularly now that global climate change is finally receiving
more serious media coverage. What are the major environmental cases that you
should be paying attention to, and why are they so important in the first
place? Here’s a breakdown of 5 environmental cases to watch at the D.C. Circuit,
and how they could establish precedent which impacts American society for
decades to come.
- A Feud Over A Natural Gas Pipeline
One of the more incendiary cases we can
expect to see at the D.C. Circuit is a feud over a natural gas pipeline. The Transcontinental
Pipeline’s Atlantic Sunrise Project is facing off with the nonprofit Allegheny
Defense Project and various other environmental groups to determine how
seriously Pennsylvania landowners and environmentalists can challenge the
construction of natural gas pipelines. Given that previous legal and social
disputes over the development of pipelines have attracted plenty of media
attention, we can suspect that this particular feud over a natural gas pipeline
will also result in similar social calamity.
Homeowners are effectively arguing that
they’re caught in an administrative limbo where they’re not permitted to
seriously legally contest the creation of pipelines until they’ve already
effectively been created. According to a report from Bloomberg Environment, Judge Patricia Millet noted that the current
legal status quo was a “Kafkaesque regime,” which is to say it’s horrifically
complex and impossible for non-legal gurus to make sense of. The homeowners and
environmentalist groups bringing the lawsuit are of the opinion that the
regulations surrounding the contestation of a pipeline’s establishment need to
be simplified for the sake of everyday people.
Feuds over the creation, maintenance, and
expansion of natural gas pipelines and oil pipelines have been garnering plenty
of media coverage in recent years. Protest surrounding the Dakota Access
Pipeline, for instance, drew international headlines in 2016 and 2017.
- A fierce fight over President Trump’s border wall
Perhaps the most high-profile environmental
case being considered by the D.C. Circuit is a fierce fight over President
Trump’s border wall. When then-candidate Donald Trump announced his intentions
to run for the presidency, he infamously declared that he would construct a
border wall between the United States and Mexico, something that
environmentalists immediately grew concerned about. Environmentalist groups
argued that by potentially creating a hard, physical border between the United
States and Mexico, various species and general biodiversity would be threatened.
According to Bloomberg Environment, this case is being brought predominately by
the Center for Biological Diversity and two other groups. The specifics of the
case won’t necessarily have to do with environmental issues, however, as some
legal experts are arguing that environmentalists are going beyond the scope of
the law by raising such concerns. Whether they’re successful remains to be
seen, but the issue could ultimately become a dispute over funding powers.
The border wall is
essentially about immigration which has been a hot issue for Trump’s
supporters. In paces like Canada, politicians have been much more careful in
raising the issue of immigration and firms like Kurzfeld
immigration law firm have been doing great work helping new arrivals
settle in the country. But not in the US.
Congress has the power of the purse, for
instance, but President Trump’s shuffling around of already-appropriated money
to fulfill his political priorities has sparked interbranch conflict.
Furthermore, the Trump Administration is continuing to forward an argument it’s
frequently relied upon thus far – that courts have no role to play in
adjudicating disputes between the legislative and executive. The true
parameters of this legal case are thus ill-defined at this moment, and the
ultimate precedent which may be established could extend far beyond the
confines of environmental regulations alone.
President Trump’s desperate desire to erect
a border on the border between the United states and Mexico has already
generated plenty of domestic and international controversy alike. According to
data compiled and presented by Gallup, a
solid majority of Americans opposes the
construction of the wall, but it remains a key priority of the Republican
voters who empowered President Trump and his congressional colleagues in the
first place.
- A legal battle over EPA funding
The Environmental Protection Agency plays a
crucially important role when it comes to a wide host of environmental issues,
but the latest legal dispute centered on the organization has to do with
funding. According to preliminary information we have on the case,
we can expect the Physicians for Social Responsibility to face off against
Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the EPA. The fight is being waged
because of new internal EPA regulations which prohibit agency scientists who
sit on its panels from receiving EPA grants to fund their research interests.
The side representing the EPA scientists
effectively says that the new regulation simply isn’t needed, as existing
ethics rules ensure that scientists should recuse themselves in situations
where a conflict of interest could lead to dubious outcomes. These scientists
can’t rely on companies to privately fund their research – instead, they need
access to EPA grants which they’re presently prohibited from due to their
sitting on EPA panels.
Scientists who want to access EPA grants in
order to fund their research presently can’t sit on certain EPA panels because
of the new regulation. While they’re legally arguing that this regulation is
frivolous and harmful to the agency, the agency itself claims they lack legal
standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
Any legal dispute involving the EPA is
likely to garner public attention given the extent to which the agency has been
featured in media coverage during the Trump Administration. The president
recently proposed slashing the EPA budget by upwards of
31 percent, for instance, in a move that generated a national debate over the
agency and the amount of funding it should receive from the federal government.
This specific legal dispute is more oriented around the internal rewarding of
EPA grants to scientists who also sit on important EPA panels, but the general
theme will likely attract at least some public attention.
- Bundy v. Sessions will ignite national
controversy
If there’s one court case being considered
by the D.C. Circuit that will ignite national controversy, it’s likely the case
of Bundy v. Sessions, which will see
Nevada Rancher Ryan Bundy attempt to prove that the Bureau of Land Management
and FBI violated his constitutional rights. The Bureau of Land Management
claims that the Bundy family was grazing its cattle on public land, and that as
a consequence of such grazing it owed unpaid debts to the federal government.
The Bundy family disputed that the federal government has authority over public
lands, an extraordinarily bold legal stance that was incredibly controversial
at the time. The Bundy’s eventually won their case when a mistrial was declared and the charges against
them were dismissed due to prosecutorial misconduct.
It was an extraordinarily high-profile case
as it fed into cultural disputes regarding where the federal government does
and doesn’t have authority. Historically speaking, many conservatives and
citizens in Western states in particular have argued that the federal
government’s authority over various things – such as public land – is
subordinate to state and local practices. While the federal government seldom
agrees with such claims, certain instances such as the Bundy’s mistrial have
enabled those claims to endure for years.
Ryan Bundy, one of the sons of Cliven Bundy
who was at the heart of the conflict, is arguing that the FBI and Bureau of
Land Management violated his right in the pursuit of uncollected grazing debts.
Insisting that the debts are inherently illegitimate, the Bundy’s are
effectively arguing that the federal government cannot impose its authority on
ranchers in similar situations in the future. Arguing that the government is
prejudiced against his Mormon faith, Bundy is making a legal case which could
establish a precedent in federal land management cases for years to come.
An extraordinarily controversial political
movement, the Bundy family’s decision to stand off against federal authorities
drew peculiar headlines around the world. The Washington Post labeled the militia “occupiers” of federal land
while the New York Times called them
“armed activists.” Critics of the Bundys labeled them domestic terrorist, a
term they vehemently disputed, but a judge ruled that prosecutors arguing
against the Bundys were indeed allowed to use testimony from an expert in
extremism and domestic terrorism during a trial.
The case is inherently concerned with
environmental issues like land management, but other important legal disputes
surrounding government power are also at play here. The Bundy’s armed standoff
with federal authorities has been considered one of the largest uprising
against the federal government in decades. According to a report on the standoff issued by NPR, it also played a crucial role in
the New Militia Movement spreading across the American West.
- A legal squabble over hunting trophies
Finally, we can expect a major legal
squabble over hunting trophies to hit the D.C. Circuit in the foreseeable
future. The Trump Administration made it easier for hunters to import hunting
trophies after venturing abroad to hunt exotic prey like elephants. Originally,
the Obama Administration placed a ban on elephant-related trophy imports due to
widespread concern about the possible extinction of various elephant species.
Facing a dwindling number of elephants in the wild, such a regulation was seen
as necessary to preserve the species.
The Trump Administration overturned the
rule, however, which immediately generated a legal challenge from the environmentalist
groups the Center for Biological Diversity and the Natural Resources Defense
Council. According to a press release put out by those groups, the repeal of
the Obama-era trophy ban endangers elephants and tigers in Zimbabwe. The Trump
Administration put a hold on the repeal of the regulation following public
backlash, but the environmental groups in question seek a more permanent and
serious legal rebuke of the decision.
This particular case is likely to go viral
and catch the public’s attention due to the optics surrounding the legal
dispute. Unlike many environmental issues which are only followed by ardent
environmentalists and legal scholars, the issue of trophy hunting and animal
well being is somewhat more familiar and accessible to the public and has even
been at the spotlight of political controversy in recent years. According to
one writer from National Geographic, public
opinion began to turn against trophy hunting following the well-publicized
killing of Cecil the Lion by an American dentist back in 2015.
A report from Wisconsin Public Radio illustrates that public opinion on such issues
as trophy hunting and the conservation of certain endangered animals can be
deeply impacted by media coverage. There are also reasons to believe that the
Trump Administration made major changes to how it intended to approach policy
on trophy hunting following a public outcry against its stance.
For example, the Trump Administration
announced the creation of an International Wildlife Conservation Council that
was heavily composed of trophy hunters, celebrity hunting guides, and
representatives from rifle manufacturers, according to USA Today. Some members of the council also had professional,
economic, or social connections to members of the Trump family, further exacerbating
public anger. Following public controversy in the wake of the report about the
council, the Trump Administration ultimately disbanded the council and hasn’t
since made any major moves when it comes to policies on trophy hunting.
Other
cases are sure to come
This is only a small sample of what the D.C.
Circuit may end up involving itself with – other cases are sure to come, and
public controversies will have a huge part to play in determining the ultimate
political outcomes of many environmental issues. It’s nevertheless important to
pay attention to key cases which are likely to attract plenty of the court’s
attention, as the precedent established by some of these cases could itself be
disputed within a short period of its enactment. With global climate change
rising on the list of priorities for most voters around the world, we can
expect more environmental legal issues to sprout up sooner rather than later.