2622 research outputs found
Sort by
Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association v. Ross
Get PDFPresident Obama established the first––and only––national monument in the Atlantic Ocean on September 15, 2016. Located 130 miles southeast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and comprised of 4,913 square miles of marine ecosystems rich in biodiversity, the protected area includes four underwater mountains and three submarine canyons. Plaintiff commercial lobster and fishing associations, seeking to overturn the designation, asserted that the Antiquities Act does not permit a president to establish marine national monuments. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia disagreed, upholding a president’s authority to protect offshore areas and vast ecosystems as objects of scientific interest, and dismissing the Lobstermen’s case in a memorandum opinion splashed with maritime references
PREVIEW; Bullock v. Internal Revenue Service: \u3cem\u3eCan Montana Force IRS Oversight of Dark Money Groups?\u3c/em\u3e
Get PDFThis lawsuit, initiated by Montana Governor Steve Bullock, challenges a 2018 administrative decision by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Under this decision, adopted as Revenue Procedure 2018-38, the IRS no longer requires some 501(c) organizations to submit the names and addresses of donors as part of their return information. Although the IRS did not make this information publicly available, they could use it to determine a group’s tax-exempt status. Prior to the promulgation of Revenue Procedure 2018-38, 501(c)(4) groups listed the names and addresses of donors making aggregate contributions over $5,000 on Schedule B of their Form 990.
Revenue Procedure 2018-38 raises campaign finance concerns, as some 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations become heavily involved in electioneering and campaign activities, and are more colloquially known as “dark money” groups. Revenue Procedure 2018-38 is viewed by many as a relaxation of regulation on money in politics, as it limits the oversight of these “dark money” groups. As an outspoken critic of the current federal campaign finance regulatory system, Governor Bullock continues to pursue policies that ensure transparency in campaign finance. This lawsuit is one such action. Campaign finance reform is also an essential component of his Presidential platform.
As an initial matter, the Court must decide whether the Plaintiffs have standing to bring suit. Should it find there is standing, the question becomes whether Revenue Procedure 2018-38 was promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). If the Court grants the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the Revenue Procedure will be set aside and the IRS would need to comply with the APA in adopting similar rules that alter the information the IRS collects. Regardless of the district court’s decision, this case will likely reach the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The Parable of Portobello: Lessons and Questions from the First Urban Acquisition Under the Scottish Community Right-to-Buy Regime
Get PDFScholars, lawyers, and activists interested in community development in the United States, Scotland, or any country seeking to expand community ownership of land will be interested, we think, in the lessons we learned in Portobello and the questions it poses for the future
PREVIEW—County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund: Clean Water Act Regulation of Point Source Pollution Conveyed through Groundwater
Get PDFThe Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in this matter on Wednesday, November 6, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. at the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Elbert Lin will likely appear for the Petitioner. David Lane Henkin will likely appear for the Respondents. Solicitor General, Noel J. Francisco, will argue on behalf of the United States
The Federal Trust Duty in an Age of Indian Self-Determination: An Epitaph for a Dying Doctrine?
Get PDFNational Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense
Get PDFIn an attempt to provide consistency to the interpretation and application of the statutory phrase “waters of the United States,” as used in the Clean Water Act, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers together passed the WOTUS Rule. Unfortunately, the Rule has created more confusion than clarity, resulting in a number of lawsuits challenging substantive portions of the Rule’s language. National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense did not address those substantive challenges, but instead determined whether those claims challenging the Rule must be filed in federal district courts or federal courts of appeals. In its decision, the United States Supreme Court refused to apply the Government’s extratextual interpretations of the WOTUS Rule and other applicable regulations, and instead limited its analysis to the plain language of those provisions. The Court concluded that petitions for review regarding the Rule should be filed in federal district courts
California v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Get PDFThe United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Land Management from implementing the Suspension Rule, which would delay the requirements of the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation Rule. Additionally, the court denied the BLM and intervening third parties’ motion to transfer venue to the District of Wyoming. The court held the plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction because the BLM did not provide a reasoned analysis for the Suspension Rule. This failure to provide meaningful notice and comment was an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. California v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management provides yet another example of the Trump Administration’s attempts to circumvent Obama-era regulations by expediting rulemaking process in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act