2622 research outputs found
Sort by
Constitutional Teeth: Sharpening Montana\u27s Clean and Healthful Environment Provision
Full text linkOut to Save the World: The Intersection of Animal Welfare Law, Environmental Law, and Respect for Fragile Ecosystems
Full text linkOf all the living things on earth, humans have the unique ability to destroy all life. Paradoxically, even though our lives will ultimately be destroyed too, we also seem to have the inability to stop the destruction, or at least alack of will to stop it. As the daily litany of new destructions2 piles up and both the pace and the quantity increase, each loss is buried in the pile beneath humanity’s other problems. When humans start prioritizing, the living environment—both flora and fauna—is often neglected, and sometimes purposely harmed.3 Even nonliving elements of nature are harmed. In short, humans destroy the ecosystems necessary for human survival in order to effectuate some other human interest, a lack of balancing that is incomprehensible.This article turns on its head the idea that if we are better human beings, we will behave better toward each other and other living things. This article starts instead with the premise that if we learn to value (and treat accordingly) all living things, we will be better human beings. Although there are undoubtedly several social lenses through which to discuss this idea, the intersection of animal law and environmental law provides a place, not just for discussion, but also for action. Specifically, there are three legal constructs at the intersection of animal law and environmental law that could significantly reduce human harm to nature: one should be dismantled, one should be strengthened, and one should be reconstructed. This article starts in Part I by looking at the dichotomy of the animal welfare and environmental movements. Although they developed separately and have interests that often compete, the two movements do intersect. Part II argues that state “ag-gag” laws4—which provide legal cover for the animal cruelty, environmental harms, and social injustices caused by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)5—should be dismantled and repealed. Part III analyzes the issue of who has and who should have constitutional standing under statutes like the Endangered Species Act (ESA).6 These statutes that are meant to protect the environment and animals could be more effective at doing so with both judicial and legislative fixes to allow courts to more often consider their injuries. Finally, Part IV tackles the role of environmental law in shifting paradigms of how we view the human/nonhuman dichotomy in nature. Legal systems are human constructs that can be reconstructed on a framework that redefines the legal status of nonhuman animals and elements of nature in order to provide ecocentric justice. In the face of some quite dire destructions and losses in the ecosystems humans inhabit and depend on for survival, human legal systems must safeguard nonhuman interests
Keynote Address
No full textRichard Cordray served for six years as the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He was appointed by President Barack Obama and confirmed by a bipartisan vote of the Senate. During his tenure, the Bureau returned over 2 billion for Ohio’s retirees, investors, and business owners and took major steps to protect consumers from fraudulent foreclosures and financial predators. He also served as Ohio Treasurer, where he led the State’s banking, investment, debt, and financing activities. He previously taught at Ohio State’s law school and served as a state legislator and as Ohio’s first Solicitor General. Rich has argued seven cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, including by special appointment of both the Clinton and Bush Justice Departments.
Rich graduated from Michigan State University’s James Madison College, Oxford University in England, and the University of Chicago Law School. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. He lives in Grove City, Ohio with his wife Peggy, a law professor at Capital University Law School, and twin children Danny and Holly
PREVIEW; United States v. Sanchez: \u3cem\u3eA Prolonged Traffic Stop and the Scope of a Consensual Search\u3c/em\u3e
Full text link
McGirt Policy Briefs: Regulation of the Environment and Natural Resources
Full text linkOn July 9, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Although the only actual effect of that decision was on Mr. McGirt’s state court criminal conviction, rendering it invalid in light of the continuing existence of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation, the implications of McGirt reverberated throughout Oklahoma and the nation. By rejecting Oklahoma’s arguments that the march to statehood had resulted in the implicit disestablishment of the Creek’s reservation (and, by analogy, those of the neighboring and similarly situated Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations), Justice Gorsuch’s opinion on behalf of the Court’s majority reaffirmed that nearly all of eastern Oklahoma remains Indian Country. The governments of those Five Tribes now face the practical challenges posed by reclaiming territorial sovereignty mostly denied to them for over a century
Navajo Nation v. United States Department of the Interior
Full text linkThe Navajo Nation sued the United States government alleging the government breached its trust obligation over the allocation of water rights in the Colorado River Basin. On remand, the district court denied the Navajo Nation leave to file its third amended complaint for futility, holding that the general trust relationship was insufficient to support the Nation’s breach of trust claim
Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.
Full text linkThroughout the twentieth century, Teck Cominco Metals leaked metal pollutants into the Upper Columbia River that ultimately entered the United States and the Colville Indian Reservation. In 2004, after almost a decade of working with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Colville Tribes initiated a citizen suit under CERCLA against Teck for damaging the ecosystem of the Upper Columbia River. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment against Teck for recovery costs and attorney’s fees