The Clean Water Act (CWA) term “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) has become an evolving term with an often squishy definition leading to considerable litigation.
As citizen scientists and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have stepped up to fill what they have called an enforcement gap since President Trump took office, the NGO playbook has become more complex and creative than perhaps ever before.
Administrative deference – in essence, that courts resolve close questions in favor of “expert” agencies – is a cornerstone of environmental practice and we’ve blogged frequently on this issue. Courts question agencies, however, when their decisions do not square with cited evidence.
Schiff Hardin is pleased to announce that four practice areas and 22 attorneys have been recognized in the 2018 edition of Chambers USA, a leading legal industry ranking.
The Trump Administration continues to prioritize guidance-driven revisions to federal regulatory programs to reduce the impact of administrative review and permitting on development.
This week, the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. that addresses three key issues arising in many federal Clean Water Act (CWA) cases:
On April 3, 2018, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) approved, with a number of substantial modifications, the Illinois Power Agency’s (IPA) first “long term renewable resources procurement plan” under the Illinois Future Energy Jobs Act (Illinois Public Act 99-0906.
“Standing” – a person’s right to sue someone else for injury – is a fundamental issue in every case. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Spokeo v. Robins, which required that a person’s injury be both “concrete” and “particularized” to confer standing.
Investor demands for climate change-related reports and risk disclosures in public filings are sometimes dismissed as socially or politically driven, but for many companies, the impact of climate change may pose genuine business risks that, like any other material risk, must be disclosed to investor
Partner Daniel Deeb was quoted on the U.S. Supreme Court decision that district courts have the jurisdiction over challenges to rules defining “waters of the United States.”
Partner Daniel Deeb was quoted on the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule must be filed in federal district courts and not in federal appellate courts.
The arrival of a new year marks the beginning of the annual proxy season. And this year, shareholders can expect to see a lot more climate change disclosure in 2017 corporate financials.
Partner Jane Montgomery was quoted on the result of the International Financial Stability Board’s Task Force’s December 2017 announcement that nearly 240 companies committed to include climate risk data in their financial disclosure reports.
In February, presidential advisor Steve Bannon stated that a primary goal of the Trump administration was the “deconstruction of the administrative state.”
Earlier this week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, that, if enacted, would eliminate judicial deference to agency regulations.
The Clean Power Plan, the Obama Administration’s attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, had its day in court on September 27. What a day it was!