Nitrogen by itself is inert. But add other chemicals and it becomes an evil character.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, citizen-developers are fighting back against doubtful Clean Water Act enforcement actions. Two subsequent lower-court decisions provide backing for the public in developing alleged wetlands.
Although most major environmental laws have been on the books since the 1970s, these laws continue to be subject to constitutional or other legal challenges. Sometimes attacks on environmental laws are opportunistic, the result of a lawyer making the best available arguments on behalf of a client in a particular case. But these challenges are often strategic, pursued by ideologically motivated anti-regulatory activists or property-rights proponents.
This new report shows that federal judges’ political affiliation may be a decisive factor in determining the outcome of cases brought under the nation’s premier environmental law. The study of recent litigation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which governs a wide variety of federal agency actions that affect pollution control, natural resources, and public lands, reveals a wide division between appointees of Democratic and Republican presidents in rulings in these cases.
U.S. environmental laws have a track record of success. They safeguard America's water, air, and endangered species. They protect people and wildlife from toxic chemicals and hazardous waste. They preserve our national parks, our wild and scenic spaces, and our public lands. They ensure that our forests, rivers, and coasts can be enjoyed for generations to come.
