No Password Required: USF Cybercrime Professor, Former Federal Agent, and Vintage Computer Archivist
Georgia on My Mind: On the Frontlines of Federal Rulemaking With AG Carr — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Small Refinery Exemption Litigation Update
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech Episode 5
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech Episode 4
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Look at the Current Challenge to Judicial Deference to Federal Agencies and What it Means for the Consumer Financial Services Industry, With Special Guest, Craig Green, Professor, Temple University
What to Expect in Chemicals Policy and Regulation and on Capitol Hill in 2023
H2-OWOW! – A Reflective Conversation with John Goodin, Former Director of EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds – Reflections on Water Podcast
Reflections on Sackett - Reflections on Water Podcast
PFAS in Focus: Wastewater Utility Perspectives From Jay Hoskins, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District - Reflections on Water Podcast
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech
Environmental Agencies, Superfund Cleanups, and Managing Enforcement Actions
West Virginia vs. EPA Part II: U.S. Supreme Court Applies the Major Questions Doctrine to limit EPA Regulatory Authority
#WorkforceWednesday: Employers Respond to Dobbs, Implications of the Supreme Court's EPA Ruling, and Pay Increases for CA Health Care Workers - Employment Law This Week®
PFAS Regulatory Update: EPA Issues Updated Drinking Water Health Advisories
West Virginia vs. EPA: An Environmental Regulations Case with Broad Implications for Agency Power
Diving In: An Interview With Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water - Reflections on Water Podcast
McGirt Uncertainty Extends to Federal Environmental Regulations in Indian Country
EPA Plan Changes PFAS Outlook For Companies, Regulators
2BInformed: Understanding the EPA’s New PFAS Strategic Roadmap and Upcoming PBT Regulations
On February 6, 2018, the EPA formally suspended the Obama-era “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) rule until 2020. This delayed implementation will provide the Trump administration with additional time to issue a clearer, and...more
“Summer’s lease hath all too short a date.” Many important environmental and administrative law decisions were reported by the federal and state courts over the past six months. The courts are dealing with very...more
This Advisory briefly reports on some of the significant U.S. Supreme Court actions from January through June 2016 related to environmental and administrative law. ...more
The United States Supreme Court has handed regulated parties their second win in four years concerning when they can take EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to court over wetlands permitting issues. In 2012, the...more
CONGRESS FINDS THE FORMULA TO REFORM CHEMICAL REGULATION - The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) is the primary federal law by which the manufacture, import and use of chemical substances are regulated in the United...more
On May 31, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. holding that approved judicial determinations as to the presence of wetlands issued by the...more
The United States Supreme Court handed landowners and developers a win this month in a unanimous decision allowing appeals to federal courts of Army Corps of Engineers determinations that a body of water or wetland is subject...more
On May 31, 2016, in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., the US Supreme Court unanimously held that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) approved jurisdictional determination (JD) is a final agency action...more
Environmental and Policy Focus - U.S. Supreme Court allows pre-permit challenges to approved jurisdictional determinations - Allen Matkins - May 31 - In a major new legal development for the Clean Water Act's...more
In a rebuke to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), the United States Supreme Court unanimously held on May 31, 2016, in Corps v. Hawkes that jurisdictional determinations (“JDs”) under the Clean Water Act are...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court decided that Army Corps’ jurisdictional determinations are judicially reviewable. This decision leaves open the question of whether other types of administrative decisions are immediately...more
Introduction - On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision that continues a trend of judicial skepticism toward federal agency efforts to avoid judicial review of agency permitting and related...more
Decision allows landowners to challenge in court a US Army Corps of Engineers’ determination that a property is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act....more
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., No. 15-290 (May 31, 2016) - Why It Matters: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously concluded that property owners who are required to obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404...more
Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court unanimously concluded that wetland determinations by the US Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) under the Clean Water Act constitute final agency action, meaning that landowners can...more
United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. (5/31/16, No. 15-290) - In a widely anticipated decision in the wake of the Sackette v. EPA (132 S.Ct. 1367 (2012) decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that...more
On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States held that final determinations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the presence or absence of “waters of the United States” can be appealed to the courts. The...more
An approved jurisdictional determination (“JD”) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) can be appealed to Federal District Court according to a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision issued May 31, 2016, U.S....more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 31, 2016 that an approved jurisdictional determination issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act is a final agency action subject to judicial review. Hawkes Co.,...more
On May 31, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an eagerly anticipated decision that will benefit landowners and developers by authorizing immediate judicial review of Approved Jurisdictional Determinations (JDs) issued by the...more
Can a landowner challenge a US Army Corps of Engineers determination that a property contains jurisdictional wetlands? In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative May 31, 2016 in USACE...more
In a major new legal development for the Clean Water Act's Section 404 wetlands permitting program, landowners can now challenge the federal government's claim that areas targeted for fill are "waters of the United States"...more
In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes, the Supreme Court held that a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that specifies whether a particular parcel of property includes waters...more
The United States Supreme Court ruled today that an approved jurisdictional determination under the Clean Water Act constitutes an immediately appealable agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 500...more
On May 31, 2016, in a (surprising) 8–0 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the full Supreme Court, issued a ruling that will have far-reaching effects on landowners, real estate developers, farmers, oil and gas...more