Environmental Law Exam 1 Flash Cards

Why do we regulate environmental issues?

Regulation exists to protect public health, safety, and the environment when markets fail to prevent harm. Without regulation, industries may prioritize profit over public welfare, leading to pollution, depletion of resources, and social inequality. Regulation ensures accountability, long-term sustainability, and fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens.

What are alternatives to traditional government regulation?

Alternatives include market-based incentives like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade, voluntary corporate compliance, public-private partnerships, and civil liability through lawsuits. These approaches rely more on economic motivation or community enforcement rather than top-down government control.

What regulatory tools are commonly used to draft environmental legislation?

Tools include performance standards (set outcome goals), design or technology standards (require specific pollution controls), permits, market mechanisms, and subsidies or taxes that influence behavior.

How do these tools reflect different policy goals or practical needs?

The tool chosen depends on the goal: performance standards encourage innovation; technology standards provide certainty; market incentives promote cost-effective compliance; and permits ensure enforceability and monitoring.

How do cases move through the courts?

Environmental cases typically start in federal district courts (trial level), can be appealed to circuit courts, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. State cases follow a similar path. Each level examines different aspects — facts at trial, procedure and law on appeal.

What is the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws?

Courts ensure that agencies and governments follow the law and Constitution. They interpret ambiguous statutes, determine if agencies acted within their authority, and check whether regulations are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to congressional intent.

What happened in Michigan v. EPA (2015)?

The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA acted unreasonably by not considering costs when regulating mercury emissions from power plants. The case reinforced that agencies must consider both economic and environmental factors under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Was Michigan v. EPA judicial interpretation or overreach?

It’s considered interpretation because the Court applied statutory and procedural limits to EPA discretion, though critics say it signaled growing judicial skepticism of agency expertise.

What are bills, statutes, and rules — and how do they differ?

A bill is a proposed law introduced in Congress or a state legislature. Once passed and signed, it becomes a statute. Rules (or regulations) are detailed directives made by agencies to implement and enforce those statutes.

How are bills enacted into law?

Bills go through committees, floor debates, and votes in both houses, then require executive approval. Once signed, agencies are tasked with creating the specific rules needed to apply the law.

What is rulemaking, and why is it important?

Rulemaking is the process by which agencies translate general laws into detailed, enforceable regulations. It’s crucial because agencies have the technical expertise to fill in the gaps left by Congress.

 What are the main steps in the rulemaking process?

Authority: Congress passes a law giving the agency power to make rules.

Drafting: The agency researches, writes a proposed rule, and prepares supporting analysis.

Notice: The agency publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register.

Public Comment: The public, organizations, and other agencies can submit feedback.

Review: The agency reviews all comments and may revise the proposal.

Final Rule: The agency publishes the final rule with explanations and responses to comments.

Effective Date: The rule usually takes effect at least 30 days after publication.

Judicial Review: Courts can review the rule to ensure it’s not arbitrary, capricious, or beyond agency authority.

What does the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) require?

The APA requires agencies to act transparently, allow for public participation, and provide reasoned justifications for decisions. Courts can strike down rules that are “arbitrary or capricious.”

What is substantive law?

Substantive law defines people’s rights and obligations — such as emission limits, endangered species protections, or clean air standards. It determines what the law enforces. 

What is procedural law?

Procedural law defines how those rights and duties are enforced — like court procedures, notice-and-comment rulemaking, or permit hearings.

Why does this distinction matter in environmental law?

Agencies must follow proper procedures when making substantive environmental rules. If they skip notice or fail to justify decisions, a court can invalidate the entire rule even if its substance is sound.

What did Chevron v. NRDC (1984) establish?

AChevron created the two-step test for judicial review of agency interpretation. Step 1 asks whether Congress has spoken clearly. If not, Step 2 allows courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. This “Chevron deference” strengthened agencies’ policymaking role.

How does Chevron relate to agency rulemaking?

It gave agencies flexibility to interpret vague environmental laws like the Clean Air Act, allowing them to fill in details Congress didn’t define. This encouraged expertise-driven policymaking and consistency in environmental enforcement.

Why wasn’t Chevron deference applied in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)?

The Supreme Court found that the Clean Air Act’s definition of “air pollutant” clearly included greenhouse gases. Because the statute was unambiguous, no deference was needed — EPA had a legal duty to regulate GHGs.

Why is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) such a big deal?

The case challenges or overturns Chevron, arguing courts shouldn’t defer to agencies’ interpretations. If successful, it would shift power from agencies back to the judiciary, fundamentally changing administrative and environmental law.

What is the potential impact of Loper Bright?

Ending or limiting Chevron could make it harder for agencies like EPA to create or update rules without explicit congressional authorization, slowing environmental regulation.

How do Chevron, Mass v. EPA, and Loper Bright connect?

They trace the evolution of agency power: Chevron expanded it, Mass v. EPA limited it by enforcing statutory clarity, and Loper Bright potentially ends it, marking a judicial shift away from deference.

What trend do these cases show in judicial treatment of agencies?

Courts are increasingly skeptical of agency authority, emphasizing separation of powers and requiring clearer congressional mandates before allowing broad regulatory action.

Why does international environmental law often fall short?

It lacks binding enforcement, relies on voluntary compliance, and depends on nations’ political will. Sovereignty limits what international bodies can require, making compliance inconsistent.

What are examples of weak enforcement in global agreements?

The Kyoto Protocol failed to enforce carbon limits when major nations withdrew, and the Paris Agreement relies only on self-reporting and political pressure, not penalties.

Why is this a problem for global environmental issues?

Issues like climate change and biodiversity loss are transboundary. Without enforceable global standards, progress depends on national priorities, making outcomes uneven and often insufficient.

What is nuisance law?

Nuisance law lets individuals or governments sue when another’s actions unreasonably interfere with the use, enjoyment, or value of land, such as through pollution, noise, or odors.

What is the difference between public and private nuisance?

Private nuisance affects individual property rights, while public nuisance affects community health, safety, or comfort, such as air or water pollution affecting an entire neighborhood.

What are the limitations of nuisance law?

It’s reactive and requires proof of direct harm and causation. It can’t easily address widespread or cumulative pollution and doesn’t create proactive prevention like environmental statutes do.

Why is nuisance law still important?

It remains a foundation of environmental tort law and provides a legal fallback when regulations are absent or inadequate.

What is standing in environmental law?

Standing determines who has the legal right to bring a case. Plaintiffs must show a specific, personal injury caused by the defendant’s action that the court can likely remedy.

What are the three constitutional requirements for standing?

(1) Injury in fact – a concrete and particular harm,

(2) Causation – the harm must be traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and

(3) Redressability – the court’s decision must be able to fix or prevent the injury.

What happened in Warth v. Seldin (1975)?

Low-income plaintiffs and housing organizations claimed that Penfield’s exclusionary zoning laws violated their rights by preventing affordable housing. The Supreme Court ruled they lacked standing because they couldn’t show they personally tried to live there or were directly harmed.

What was Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw (2000) about?

Environmental groups sued Laidlaw for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants into a river. Laidlaw argued the case was moot because it stopped polluting.

What did the Court decide in Laidlaw?

The Supreme Court held that the case was not moot. Citizens had standing because pollution reasonably deterred their use and enjoyment of the river, and penalties still served as deterrence.

How does Laidlaw contrast with Warth?

Warth limited standing to direct, proven injuries, while Laidlaw expanded it by recognizing harm to recreational and aesthetic enjoyment as valid injury under environmental law.

Why is standing important in environmental law?

It defines who can challenge environmental harm. Broader standing lets more citizens enforce environmental laws; narrower standing restricts it to those directly affected.

What is a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment?

A taking occurs when government regulation or action effectively deprives a property owner of use or value. The Constitution requires “just compensation” if private property is taken for public use.

What did Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NYC (1978) decide?

The Court ruled that New York’s landmark law preventing skyscraper construction over Grand Central Terminal was not a taking. It established a balancing test considering the economic impact, interference with expectations, and the character of the regulation.

What did Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) determine?

The Court held that a regulation depriving land of all economically beneficial use is a per se taking, requiring compensation unless the restriction reflects long-standing property limits (like nuisance).

What was Kelo v. City of New London (2005) about?

The Court allowed the use of eminent domain for economic development projects, defining “public use” broadly. It was controversial because it allowed private property to be taken for another private party’s benefit if the public gained indirectly.

How do these cases define modern takings doctrine?

Together, they show the balance between public need and private property rights: Penn Central emphasizes flexibility, Lucas defines absolute loss, and Kelo expands “public use.”

What test is used to decide if a government regulation is a “taking”?

Courts use the Penn Central Balancing Test, from Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978). It weighs three factors:

Reasonableness of Action — If the situation should be questioned (usually doesn’t get questioned)

Investment-Backed Expectations —Whether the owner reasonably expected to use or profit from the property in a certain way.

Valueless or Essentially Valueless — If the takings rendered your property somehow valueless or essentially valuless.

If the balance shows the burden on the owner outweighs public benefit, it may be considered a taking that requires compensation.

Inverse Condemnation

Saying when your property has already been seized, hoping to appeal. Happens when the government has taken or damaged their property for public use without a formal condemnation process