Legal arguments that the laws a state enacts which take into consideration the interests of its own citizens unfairly impede the free flow of interstate commerce are difficult to win, as demonstrated by two recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rulings. On March 29, the Second Circuit issued two Commerce Clause/Dormant Commerce Clause decisions:
Check out our colleague Tim Wright’s recent post on Pillsbury’s Sourcing Blog titled Oh No, Mr. Robot Just Hacked Our Smart Building…
Public discourse regarding climate change is becoming focused less on whether it is occurring, and more on what society can and should do to address or slow its progression. Geoengineering, which involves deliberately modifying the earth’s climate, is gaining traction in the scientific community and may prove to be a useful tool in the future. However, as with many emerging technologies, the legal system is not designed to regulate geoengineering research and testing activities, much less widescale deployment.
In an article recently published in Pratt’s Energy Law Report, Pillsbury partner Rob James offers his suggestions on how domestic law can be navigated effectively to facilitate the research of geoengineering technologies.
Today, our colleagues John Jensen, Dick Oliver and David Dixon published their Alert titled Defenders of the Debriefing, New DoD rules enhance contractors’ post-award debriefing rights. Takeaways include:
California rang in 2018 as the largest legal marketplace in the country for recreational marijuana when it implemented the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis
Regulatory Safety Act (“MAUCRSA”). As we discussed in Part 1 and Part 2 of this blog series, while California’s real estate industry is budding with recreational marijuana, negative side effects are inevitable. In this Part 3 of our five part blog series on the legalization of marijuana and its correlation to the real estate industry, we discuss what has changed since January 1st, what still needs to be done, and how the real estate industry has been impacted.
On March 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided the case of Marquette County Road Commission v. U.S. EPA, et al. The opinion will not be published in the Federal Reporter. Both the trial court and the Sixth Circuit rejected the Marquette County Road Commission’s argument that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) actions and inactions amounted to a “veto,” and were thus a “final action” for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Many lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims alleging that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) management of the Missouri River flood control system has resulted in the serious flooding of many properties located in several states that are located adjacent to the river, and that this amounts to an unconstitutional “taking” of their property in violation of the U.S. Constitution. On March 13, 2018, a very long opinion (more than 250 pages) was released following extensive hearings which holds that these claims have merit, and now the court will decide whether the plaintiffs may be entitled to an appropriate amount of compensation. The case is Ideker Farms, Inc., et al,., v. The United States, based on the evidence submitted regarding 44 plaintiffs selected as representative or “Bellwether” plaintiffs.
On Friday, March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued another significant ruling in a Clean Water Act (CWA) Citizen Suit case. Affirming the District Court, the Ninth Circuit held
“pipes, ditches, and channels that discharge pollutants from non-concentrated aquatic animal production facilities are point sources within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).”
The case is Olympic Forest Coalition v. Coast Seafoods Corp.
On March 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision interpreting Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 and the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission’s (FERC) permitting authority, which may have settled some lingering legal issues for the construction of pipelines. The case is New York State Department of Environmental conservation, et al., v. FERC.
The Second Circuit considered two issues:
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has issued its Directive (DIR) 2018-01 as part of ongoing efforts to increase transparency of preliminary findings with federal contractors, and to achieve consistency across regional and district offices, standardizing the use of Predetermination Notices (PDN). A PDN is a letter that OFCCP uses to inform federal contractors and subcontractors (contractors) of OFCCP’s preliminary findings of employment discrimination. Directive 2018-01 provides a uniform protocol for OFCCP staff to follow for using PDNs in both individual and systemic discrimination cases.
