- Professor John Kunich, Fulbright Senior Specialists
Endangered Species Act listing settlements between the Environmental Protection Agency and private parties have not always allowed state participation or input. Truncated legal proceedings may not sufficiently recognize private partnerships with states to remedy habitat conservation concerns. State actors, energy industries, ranchers, and private property owners have asked how the process may better serve all interests. As some states face settlement decrees that represent potentially dozens – to over a hundred – new listings, is there a way to ensure equity and full process for all concerned parties?
On January 9, 2015, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the law dictating the potential path of the Keystone XL pipeline through the state was not unconstitutional. President Obama previously cited the pending lawsuit as a reason to delay making an approval decision on the controversial pipeline project. Nebraska’s former Deputy Attorney General Katie Spohn argued the case, and she joined a Teleforum conference call to discuss the decision and potential upcoming Keystone XL litigation.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required by the 1978 Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act to submit all proposed regulations to the federal Science Advisory Board (SAB) for peer review. However, in 2011 the EPA issued regulations establishing greenhouse gas emission and fuel efficiency standards both for cars and for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (the Car Rule and the Truck Rule) without submitting either proposed rule to the SAB. On Friday, January 9, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a consolidated case that will determine the legal remedy for these alleged violations of administrative procedure. Ted Hadzi-Antich of the Pacific Legal Foundation argued the case before the D.C. Circuit Court, and he discussed the case and the oral arguments on a live Teleforum conference call.