Center for Food Safety’s Post

Part ii. The Doctrine of Exhaustion in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Abidha Nicholus v Attorney General & 7 others, Petition E007 of 2023. A win to the ELRC and the ELC and a blow to ADR. The Court in its weighty decision held that it is ONLY in exceptional circumstances that courts may assume jurisdiction as a court of a first instance in cases that would have otherwise been adjudicated by internal mechanisms laid out in law, such as tribunals. For instance, where there is an alleged violation of the constitution, the jurisdiction lies in the High Court or the court of equal status and tribunals have no jurisdiction entertaining such matters. This primarily flows from Articles 22, 23(3),165 and 258 of the Constitution. In hindsight, the Supreme Court says that challenging a decision of the County Public service Board would require the complainant to first approach the Public Service Commission or in a breach and/or violations of the provisions of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA), disputes ought to be lodged with and/or addressed by National Environmental Tribunal (NET) in the first instances as the law mandates, but the EXCEMPTION to disputes that does not raise any constitutional issue. Despite the fact that the Court cautioned against cleverly bootstrapping claims into constitutional violations or merely framing issues in a Bill of Rights language as a pretext to gain entry to the Court, there hardly can be violations from those Public Bodies that does not raise constitutional issues in the face of it. While this may be a win in the entrenchment of the ELRC and the ELC, it is a quite a blow to the enhancement of the Alternative Dispute Resolution.

The Chevron doctrine, a staple of administrative and environmental law for the last forty years, was overturned today in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Commerce. In essence, the Chevron doctrine stood for the principle that agencies, due to their specific expertise, deserved a certain level of deference from courts when implementing legislation and making policy decisions. The Chevron doctrine had been under attack for years, and the decision by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court is not particularly surprising, but it is a major shift in administrative law and reinforces the trend of the judiciary increasing its power over the executive branch. It is also going to make it much harder for the Biden administration to implement its priority policies at every level, including to address our climate crisis. #environmentallaw #administrativelaw #SCOTUS #executivepower #climate #environment https://lnkd.in/gUhmvKmh

In our recent blog, we discuss how recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce are shaking up the Chevron doctrine. This doctrine allowed government agencies to interpret unclear laws, especially in environmental and other complex areas. Now, courts may have more say, potentially creating legal uncertainty and affecting how regulations are enforced, especially in states like California known for stricter environmental rules.

The willingness of the Supreme Court to wade into the murkiest of environmental issues reveals how eager the Justices are to leave their mark. The Court’s ruling in Sackett v. EPA was intended to calm the long-shifting currents of federal jurisdiction over wetlands, but it left significant eddies in its wake. Questions remain regarding the scope of federal jurisdiction, the implementation of Sackett and the resulting federal rule promulgated in fall of 2023 and litigation pending in lower courts. But more fundamentally, the receding waters of federal jurisdiction places new-found emphasis on the long-overshadowed role and authority of state and local governments and interstate compacts. Existing state laws–which vary dramatically–are receiving increased attention and scrutiny, with battle lines being drawn in state capitals and agencies across the country. And this forced patchwork approach will have significant downstream and cross-border impacts. This panel will survey the current landscape at the federal, state, and local levels, provide insights into the future of wetland regulation, and give attendees practical tools to help them navigate these dynamic waters. Join us in Chicago for SEER's 53rd Spring Conference on Environmental Law! Don't miss out—register now at AMBAR.org/SEERspring. #SEERspring #EnvironmentalLaw

On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding two cases that could roll back authority currently exercised by federal administrative agencies in regulating corporate behavior, with potentially great impact for companies operating throughout the United States and, in particular, could limit the federal government’s ability to enforce environmental regulations. Check out the below article written by Reid and Riege, P.C. law clerk Samantha Passanante to learn more about both cases. https://lnkd.in/eup-xWKS

The N.Y. Appellate Division, Fourth Department, recently issued the first appellate decision to substantively address N.Y.'s Green Amendment (Art. 1, sec. 19). While the decision covers a lot of ground in few pages, I find it most notable for what it does not confront: Whether the Green Amendment enables private parties to seek relief for environmental harms against other private parties. It's not surprising that the Fourth Department refrained from answering that question (the parties did not dispute that the Green Amendment only governs citizens' rights with respect to their government, and courts are reluctant to weigh in on uncontested issues). But, as my co-authors and I wrote in an article published earlier this year, a holistic review of the Green Amendment's history and substance shows that the amendment does enable private litigation - making it a powerful tool for plaintiffs suffering environmental harms. Though this case did not present the Fourth Department with occasion to conduct that review, a future case almost certainly will. Our article can be found here: https://lnkd.in/eD_ZJWE5

"In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs." Thank you SCOTUSblog and author Amy Howe for the coverage of the Supreme Court's major ruling. #law #administrativelaw #scotus

Join me today for a discussion with legal experts, Adam White and Lisa Heinzerling, regarding the impending fate of the Chevron doctrine and implications for environmental protection.

We've gotten a number of requests to explain the implications of a new United States Supreme Court ruling that took place last week. It's a complex legal issue, but here's the gist: 𝐈𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬: The US Congress passes a law to protect endangered species. But the law might not be super clear on a specific matter. Enter the Chevron doctrine. It was a principle that meant courts would allow agencies some flexibility to interpret the details of the law based on their expertise. Think of it like asking your mechanic to explain a vague car manual passage – they have the specialised knowledge to make the best call. 𝐍𝐨𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐠 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬: The Supreme Court recently overturned the Chevron doctrine. This means: ▶ Judges now have more say in what environmental laws mean, despite not always having technical expertise in these fields. This could lead to more legal challenges against regulations, potentially weakening them. ▶ Environmental groups are concerned that this might make it harder to fight climate change and protect our air, water, and wildlife. ▶ Uncertainty and delays are also on the horizon as courts grapple with interpreting complex environmental issues. However, past agency action that was previously defended by relying on the Chevron doctrine will remain valid, thankfully. But the future of environmental regulations is a bit cloudier. For a more legal and detailed insight into overturning the Chevron doctrine, read our article below! #ClimateLitigation #EnvironmentalLitigation #EnvironmentalLaw #SupremeCourt https://lnkd.in/ewDeJRxm

The US Supreme Court overturned the so-called “Chevron deference”—a 1984 decision holding that courts generally should defer to federal agencies when there are disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in legislation passed by Congress. This approach supposedly leads to more informed decisions by leaning on expertise within those agencies. By overturning the Chevron doctrine, the Supreme Court decided that judges ought to make the call instead of agency experts. This court deference had been broadly applied to all US federal agencies, including the EPA. The decision will change how US environmental and consumer protections are decided and will weaken federal agencies’ ability to regulate the industry. For instance, EPA’s authority to regulate derives from Congressional laws including the Clean Air Act. But evolving regulations pertaining to newer concerns like CO2 or methane emissions—issues not specifically written into the statutes—can now be subject to court review and challenge. If a divided Congress fails to rewrite new, more specific legislation, this could result in a rollback of federal authority over broad segments of the economy. https://lnkd.in/eSvMZYqX https://lnkd.in/ePV3j4Uc