LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
Environmental Protection Laws under Siege: The Advance of Efforts to Create Exemptions to CEQA and Suspend AB 32

By Douglas Carstens, Partner, Chatten-Brown & Carstens Get insightful analysis on recent attacks against the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). This article addresses attempts to blame CEQA and AB 32 for many economic ills that...

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari on GE’s Due Process Challenge to EPA Orders Under CERCLA

WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) The U.S. Supreme Court has declined review of a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling holding that the Environmental Protection Agency's use of unilateral administrative orders to enforce Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and...

Streamlining in the Name of Economic Improvement and Job Creation Dominates 2011 California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Legislation

By Mr. Ron Bass and Mr. Al Herson I. Introduction to 2011 CEQA Legislation In a last minute flurry of activity, three bills dominated the California Legislature's attention to CEQA during the final week of the session, and were signed into law. All three bills are based on a common principle...

Oral Arguments Held at Supreme Court on Judicial Review of EPA Compliance Order to Restore Wetlands

WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) A couple told the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 9 that their inability to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency order issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA) violated their due process rights and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) ( Chantell Sackett, et al. v...

Supreme Court Holds in Sackett v. EPA That Idaho Couple Can Challenge EPA Wetlands Compliance Order As A Final Agency Action

WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) The U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 unanimously found that an Idaho couple could file a lawsuit challenging a compliance order issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act (CWA) because the order was a final agency action that could be...

LexisNexis® Environmental Law and Climate Change Community Podcast: Brad Marten on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Sackett v. EPA.

On this edition, Brad Marten of Marten Law in Seattle discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA . The unanimous high Court found that an Idaho couple could appeal an administrative compliance order issued by the EPA under the Clean Water Act. Mr. Marten explains the background...

Sackett v. EPA - Supreme Court Allows Pre-Enforcement Review of Clean Water Act Compliance Orders

By Sedina L. Banks, Attorney, Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP On March 21st, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Sackett family has a right to challenge a pre-enforcement compliance order from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before EPA initiates...

California Workers' Comp Case Roundup (6/14/2014)

CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 79 No. 5 May 2014 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions Denied Judicial Review CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE © Copyright 2014 LexisNexis. All rights...

A Framework for Judicial Review and Remand in Immigration Law

Collin D Schueler, University of Kentucky College of Law, 2015, Denver University Law Review, Forthcoming : "This Article breaks new ground at the intersection of administrative law and immigration law. One of the more important questions in both fields is whether a reviewing court should resolve...

Minnesota: Attorney Fee Statutory Formula Constitutionally Ok, In Spite of No Judicial Review of Award

The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the attorney fee statute applicable in workers’ compensation cases, Minn. Stat. § 176.081, subd. 1(a) (2012), does not violate the separation of powers by requiring employers and insurers to pay attorney fees calculated by a statutory formula not subject...

CA9 on Finality, Jurisdiction: Abdisalan v. Holder

"When does an order of removal become “final” for the purpose of seeking judicial review? Panels of our court have reached varying conclusions, creating unnecessary confusion as to the timeliness of petitions for review and our jurisdiction to entertain them. We reheard this matter en...

U.S. Supreme Court: EEOC’s Conciliation Efforts May Be Reviewed

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) Courts have a limited authority to review whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has met its duty under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to attempt conciliation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning in a unanimous opinion that vacated...

Employment Attorneys React to Supreme Court Decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC

On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court settled the question of whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s statutory duty to conciliate a remedy to a Title VII violation prior to filing a lawsuit is subject to some level of judicial review. The decision was unanimous and the answer...

Supremes to Employers: No, We Won't Make EEOC Force You To Settle

In one of the most bizarre employer appeals I've ever seen, a company called Mach Mining asked the Supreme Court to dismiss a suit by EEOC because EEOC didn't engage in sufficient conciliation efforts. Conciliation is a fancy term for trying to settle a case. It's done after EEOC makes one...

The Supreme Court Decides Mach Mining LLC vs. EEOC: A “Win” For Employers?

by Terese Connolly and Mikela Sutrina Last week, in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC , the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII authorizes judicial review of the EEOC’s efforts to satisfy its statutory duty to conciliate before filing suit against an employer [lexis.com subscribers may access...

U.S. Supreme Court Rules EEOC’S Efforts to Conciliate Are Subject to Judicial Review

by Julie A. Moore Before suing an employer for employment discrimination under Title VII, the EEOC must first “endeavor to eliminate [the] alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” 42 U.S.C. §2000e–5(b). Only once...