Without dissent, but with strong concurring opinions, the Supreme Court has decided two cases that could, over time, significantly affect the relationships between the federal government and the regulated community. In the first case, the Court was asked to review the distribution of regulatory powers between Amtrak, which operates many railroad operations, and its rail competitors, resulting from a transportation law enacted in 2008. In enacting this law, the question is whether the Congress illegally delegated some of its regulatory powers to Amtrak. The Court ruled that it did not, but the case was returned to the lower court to decide some important constitutional issues. In the second case, the Court held that federal agencies, when they issue interpretive rulings, are not required to follow the standard notice and comment procedures that govern federal rulemaking, even though these interpretive rulings may have a very important effect on the parties that it regulates. While legal, the practice clearly troubles some of the Justices.
Continue Reading ›
DC Circuit Denies Challenge to DOI’s Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Program for 2012-2017
In the case of Center for Sustainable Economy v. Sally Jewell and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, decided on March 6, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the Center’s petition to review the Department of Interior’s (“DOI”) latest proposed leasing program. Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requires the Department to balance competing economic, social and environmental values in determining when and where to make offshore leases in federal waters available. According to the Center, the DOI’s actions fell short of complying with the law’s mandate and, in particular, some of the economic analysis.
Continue Reading ›
Reality TV ~ CSLB Discussion Forum for Contractors
In the fall of 2014, the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) launched a new forum — CSLB TV — for engaging in discussions with contractors about issues and challenges that affect the construction industry. The first event, an interactive webinar on September 19, 2014 titled Doing It Right: HVAC Permits & Title 24 Energy Regulations Webinar, discussed issues and challenges in the HVAC industry related to California Energy Commission Title 24 energy efficiency regulations and the permitting process with local building divisions. Topics for future CSLB TV are being discussed. To submit a webinar topic recommendation, email social@cslb.ca.gov.
Continue Reading ›
3D Printed 5-Story, 1,100 Sq. Meters Villa?
Recently it was reported that Shanghai WinSun Decoration Design Engineering Co. has used 3D printing technology to create a 5-story, 1,110 square meters villa using construction waste. Pictures of the villa are included in the articles Chinese firm 3D-prints 5-story house using construction waste ‘ink’ and Exclusive: WinSun China builds world’s first 3D printed villa and tallest 3D printed apartment building. WinSun’s website also features more pictures of its 3D projects.
Lining Up to Bid Protest
Today, my colleague Alex Tomaszczuk and I published our client alert Lining Up to Protest Bid — protest dismissed as company fails to allege it was “next in line” for award. The Alert discusses the U.S. Court of Federal Claims’ February 10, 2015 decision in Universal Marine Company, K.S.C. v. United States, No. 14-1115C, dismissing the bid protest complaint filed because the protester was not “next in line” for award of the contract and, therefore, lacked standing to protest. As noted in the Alert, this decision serves as a critical reminder for bid protesters of the necessity of demonstrating, through a carefully crafted complaint, that they were “prejudiced” by the agency’s actions.
U.S. Court of Federal Claims Answers Jurisdiction Question
Wetlands mitigation banking agreements are subject to the rules of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps); they can serve a useful public purpose by assisting with the restoration and preservation of waterways subject to the Clean Water Act.
Continue Reading ›
San Francisco Gross Receipts Tax Update: New Regulations Impact Returns Due Today
Beginning in 2014, every person engaging in business within San Francisco is subject to an annual Gross Receipt Tax (“GRT”) measured by the person’s gross receipts from all taxable business activities attributable to San Francisco. The GRT will be phased in and the existing Payroll Expense Tax phased out over a 5-year period. During this phase-out period, taxpayers must report their GRT and Payroll Expense Tax liabilities on a single tax return, the first of which is due March 2, 2015. A person engaging in business within San Francisco must file a single GRT and Payroll Expense Tax return on a combined basis with all of that person’s related entities.
Continue Reading ›
Environmental Case Law Update (As of Feb. 26, 2015)
Readers may find helpful this recapitulation of recently-decided environmental law cases by the federal and state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued two important rulings, and the court will be deciding important administrative law and Clean Air Act cases before the current term ends in June.
1. FEDERAL COURTS
A. Supreme Court
Kansas and Nebraska share the waters of the Republican River that flow through their states, as well as Colorado. Their disputes resulted in the Republican River Compact, which the states agreed to in 1943 to fairly allocate the water resources of the Republican River; the Compact was approved by the Congress in appropriate legislation. In 1998, Kansas and Nebraska argued over Nebraska’s increased pumping of groundwater, which resulted from the construction of thousands of wells hydraulically connected to the Republican River and its tributaries. A Special Master was appointed to sort out these complaints, and a settlement was signed in 2002 which included new procedures to promote compliance with the Compact. After the experience of some lingering droughts, Kansas complained that Nebraska was exceeding its authorized allocation of water. Another Special Master was appointed, who determined that Nebraska had knowingly failed to comply with the Compact in consuming excessive amounts of Republican River water, and the Master awarded Kansas $3.7 million for its loss and an additional sum of $1.8 million against Nebraska as a “partial disgorgement”. Both parties filed exceptions to the Special Master’s report, which the Supreme Court approved in the latest Kansas v. Nebraska decision, decided February 24, 2015.
Continue Reading ›
Supreme Court Addresses What Is A “Tangible Object” Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Today, in a narrow 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which had affirmed the felony conviction of John Yates, a commercial fisherman, who was suspected of having caught undersized red grouper in federal waters off the coast of Florida and convicted for concealing evidence of a violation of the federal conservation laws. This is an important ruling affecting the enforcement of the federal conservation laws and interpreting the scope of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was enacted in the wake of the Enron collapse and the destruction of financial documents that abetted its demise. The case is Yates v. United States, decided February 25, 2014.
Continue Reading ›
Divided Supreme Court Upholds Special Master’s Report in Disagreement Between Kansas and Nebraska
Yesterday, in the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kansas v. Nebraska, several members of the Court strongly disagreed with the determinations of Justice Kagan, including that “disgorgement” was proper. The Chief Justice, and Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito argued that the Court’s equitable power was not sufficient to alter the accounting principles the states had agreed to in earlier settlements. For his part, Justice Scalia advised his colleagues not to treat the Restatements of the law as an authoritative description of the law: “Over time, the Restatements’ authors have abandoned the mission of describing the law, and have chosen instead to set forth their aspirations for what the law ought to be”. For his part, Justice Thomas took the view that ordinary contract principles should have been applied to this dispute, which the majority ignored, and observed that this dispute involves the “inherent authority of sovereign states to regulate the use of water” and that “authority over water is a core attribute of state sovereignty”. These views may play a role in all manner of cases in the future.
Continue Reading ›