Podcast - Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA: The Intersection of Constitutional and Environmental Law
SCOTUS Clean Air Act Cases: What’s New?
Rewriting the Rules: The Supreme Court's Landmark Decision on Clean Water Act Permits
Compliance into the Weeds: More Compliance Challenges in the Trump Era
Environmental and Sustainability Regulations & the New Administration
No Password Required: USF Cybercrime Professor, Former Federal Agent, and Vintage Computer Archivist
Georgia on My Mind: On the Frontlines of Federal Rulemaking With AG Carr — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Small Refinery Exemption Litigation Update
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech Episode 5
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech Episode 4
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Look at the Current Challenge to Judicial Deference to Federal Agencies and What it Means for the Consumer Financial Services Industry, With Special Guest, Craig Green, Professor, Temple University
What to Expect in Chemicals Policy and Regulation and on Capitol Hill in 2023
H2-OWOW! – A Reflective Conversation with John Goodin, Former Director of EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds – Reflections on Water Podcast
Reflections on Sackett - Reflections on Water Podcast
PFAS in Focus: Wastewater Utility Perspectives From Jay Hoskins, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District - Reflections on Water Podcast
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech
Environmental Agencies, Superfund Cleanups, and Managing Enforcement Actions
West Virginia vs. EPA Part II: U.S. Supreme Court Applies the Major Questions Doctrine to limit EPA Regulatory Authority
#WorkforceWednesday: Employers Respond to Dobbs, Implications of the Supreme Court's EPA Ruling, and Pay Increases for CA Health Care Workers - Employment Law This Week®
PFAS Regulatory Update: EPA Issues Updated Drinking Water Health Advisories
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's March 12 announcement of 31 deregulatory initiatives may seem like a major shift. But most of these actions require reconsideration of existing rules — a process that is governed...more
Changes in presidential Administration often mean changes in policy priorities and budgeting, but a Maryland federal district court recently held that the executive branch’s ability to pivot on policy has limits....more
On May 16, in Texas v. EPA, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected EPA’s nonattainment designation for two counties in Texas. What I find most interesting about the case is the reaction to it. Inside EPA (subscription...more
Every law student learns that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) outlines the default rules for how federal agencies propose and finalize regulations and how courts review them. But for many significant actions under the...more
Sometimes, a blog just has to be written. For those of us of a certain age, Sterling Hayden's speech as Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove concerning the Communist plot to fluoridate our water is iconic. Well, it turns out...more
In 2005 the Corps of Engineers adopted a Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) providing that an “approved jurisdictional determination” (AJD) “will remain valid for a period of five years, unless new information warrants revision...more
Last week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals became the latest court to reject EPA’s position that its decision to bar scientists receiving grants from EPA from serving on its advisory panels was not subject to judicial...more
On Monday, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals held that EPA’s directive forbidding those who receive EPA grants from serving on EPA advisory committees is subject to judicial review. It’s an important issue, because the...more
The United States Supreme Court has handed regulated parties their second win in four years concerning when they can take EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to court over wetlands permitting issues. In 2012, the...more
On May 31, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. holding that approved judicial determinations as to the presence of wetlands issued by the...more
The United States Supreme Court handed landowners and developers a win this month in a unanimous decision allowing appeals to federal courts of Army Corps of Engineers determinations that a body of water or wetland is subject...more
On May 31, 2016, in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., the US Supreme Court unanimously held that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) approved jurisdictional determination (JD) is a final agency action...more
Environmental and Policy Focus - U.S. Supreme Court allows pre-permit challenges to approved jurisdictional determinations - Allen Matkins - May 31 - In a major new legal development for the Clean Water Act's...more
In a rebuke to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), the United States Supreme Court unanimously held on May 31, 2016, in Corps v. Hawkes that jurisdictional determinations (“JDs”) under the Clean Water Act are...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court decided that Army Corps’ jurisdictional determinations are judicially reviewable. This decision leaves open the question of whether other types of administrative decisions are immediately...more
Introduction - On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision that continues a trend of judicial skepticism toward federal agency efforts to avoid judicial review of agency permitting and related...more
Decision allows landowners to challenge in court a US Army Corps of Engineers’ determination that a property is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act....more
Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court unanimously concluded that wetland determinations by the US Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) under the Clean Water Act constitute final agency action, meaning that landowners can...more
United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. (5/31/16, No. 15-290) - In a widely anticipated decision in the wake of the Sackette v. EPA (132 S.Ct. 1367 (2012) decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that...more
On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States held that final determinations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the presence or absence of “waters of the United States” can be appealed to the courts. The...more
An approved jurisdictional determination (“JD”) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) can be appealed to Federal District Court according to a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision issued May 31, 2016, U.S....more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 31, 2016 that an approved jurisdictional determination issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act is a final agency action subject to judicial review. Hawkes Co.,...more
On May 31, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an eagerly anticipated decision that will benefit landowners and developers by authorizing immediate judicial review of Approved Jurisdictional Determinations (JDs) issued by the...more
In a major new legal development for the Clean Water Act's Section 404 wetlands permitting program, landowners can now challenge the federal government's claim that areas targeted for fill are "waters of the United States"...more
In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, the Supreme Court held that a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that specifies whether a particular parcel of property includes waters...more