Project Catalyst: An Economic Development Podcast | Episode 9: The Role of Railways in Economic Development with Brian Gwin of Norfolk Southern
A "Course Correction" of NEPA Review - In an 8-0 judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had vacated the U.S. Surface Transportation Board’s (the “Board”)...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, clarifying the standards for judicial review of challenges to agency action under the National Environmental Policy Act...more
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of federal agency review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)...more
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its eagerly awaited National Environmental Policy Act decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. We were not disappointed. ...more
Over the last half century, federal courts have interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to require federal agencies to study an ever-growing range of indirect effects and impacts when approving large...more
In the first major National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) case to reach the Supreme Court in almost two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v....more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — which requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of projects that they carry out, fund, or approve — does not...more
The US Supreme Court granted a petition of certiorari in Seven County Infrastructure v. Eagle County, Colorado, which concerns the scope of review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Granting certiorari allows...more
On June 24, the Supreme Court granted certiorari review in a case with serious implications for those seeking federal permits which, in turn, require environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act...more
In a unanimous ruling earlier this month, the Supreme Court in Bissonnette, et al., v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, et al., 601 U.S. ----144 S.Ct. 905 (2024) held that transportation workers need not work for a company in...more
Litigation challenging government economic regulation has become more common, as courts appear increasingly less deferential to legislative and executive action. Most of this type of litigation focuses on federal regulation,...more
Everyone expected that EPA's eighth attempt to define the reach of the Federal Clean Water Act would end up in court. I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that two groups of plaintiffs filed their lengthy complaints...more
Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller PLLC, No. 21-869: This case concerns whether emotional distress damages are recoverable in a private action to enforce the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act. The plaintiff...more
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal courts can review decisions by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board denying claimants’ requests to reopen prior benefits denials. Salinas v. U.S. R.R. Ret. Bd.,...more
On February 3, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board, No. 19–199, holding that a refusal by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board to reopen a prior benefits determination is...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following three decisions: Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, No. 19-351: In this Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) case, the respondents - heirs of...more
On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the Alabama Department of Revenue’s petition to review the Eleventh Circuit’s 2018 decision to finally put a decade old dispute “to the shed.” This saga started...more
The High Court has a daunting lineup of decisions yet to issue this year, but it’s checking one off the list with yesterday’s 5-4 holding upholding the right of companies to use arbitration clauses in employment contracts “to...more
Focus - EPA Region 9 Administrator position reportedly to be filled by lawyer - THE HILL - Apr 30 Michael Stoker, a former Republican Santa Barbara County supervisor and agriculture attorney, will soon be appointed...more
The United States Supreme Court will not be taking up the California Supreme Court’s July 2017 decision in the Friends of the Eel River case. In that decision, authored by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, the California Supreme...more
Focus - Trump administration moves to expand oil and gas drilling off U.S. coasts - Los Angeles Times - Jan 4 The Trump administration, inviting a political backlash from coastal state leaders, on Thursday proposed to...more
This past term, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two matters in which it unequivocally held that state courts’ ability to assert personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants is limited under both general and specific...more
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell (BNSF), No. 16-405, 2017 WL 2322834, (U.S. May 30, 2017) demonstrates why personal jurisdiction should be examined in response to every lawsuit filed against a...more
On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court decided BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, No. 16-405, holding that § 56 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) does not address personal jurisdiction and thus limiting the fora in which a...more
On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States held that section 56 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) does not address personal jurisdiction over railroads. The two underlying lawsuits were filed in...more