Whether regulation generally—and environmental regulation, in particular—imposes significant burdens on property owners and other regulated parties is sharply contested. The … More
One of the greatest strengths of free market environmentalism approaches to environmental problems is that they facilitate the development of … More
Last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it had settled a lawsuit brought by 20 states against … More
In law school, my civil procedure professor’s favorite quip was that he would gladly let his opposing council choose the … More
On Monday, the Supreme Court granted review in Weyerhauser v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services—a closely watched case about a federal … More
The federal Endangered Species Act has generated a lot of conflict over the last 44 years, but has little to … More
The Supreme Court’s vague definition of “property” undermines free-market environmentalism.
Is EPA tied to Justice Kennedy’s mushy test for Clean Water Act jurisdiction? No. Federalism, the fact that it is a criminal statute, and Kennedy’s acknowledgment that the statute is hopelessly vague all justify EPA substantially narrowing bureaucrats’ authority.
If Congress can only protect its choices by broadly preempting states laws, it will. And, in the long run, states will have less room to protect the environment than they would if courts continued to enforce the balance. That would be a significant blow to both federalism and the environment.
If red states must accept Congress’ decisions about federal lands, blue states do too.