<\/p>\n
During Justice Antonin Scalia\u2019s tenure on the Supreme Court, a conservative California-based legal foundation had six straight victories on property rights and Clean Water Act cases. The decisions bolstered private property owners\u2019 ability to develop their land and restricted federal authority to protect waters and wetlands from being polluted or filled in. In the Pacific Legal Foundation\u2019s biggest wins, the justices were split, 5-4 or 4-1-4. Scalia\u2019s vote was essential for the firm\u2019s favorable outcomes. With Scalia\u2019s death last weekend, the Pacific Legal Foundation lost a powerful ally who showed deep enthusiasm for their cases, and who often took the role of writing the court\u2019s decisions in their favor. \u201cI do think it\u2019s less likely that the Court will adopt additional restrictions\u201d on the Clean Water Act, says Damien Schiff, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation.<\/p>\n
Scholars say Pacific Legal Foundation is justifiably concerned. \u201cIf you lose Scalia, there\u2019s nothing subtle about that change,\u201d says Richard Lazarus, a Harvard Law School professor and expert in environmental and natural resource law and the Supreme Court. Scalia was deeply skeptical about a broad interpretation of the Clean Water Act and greatly concerned about private property rights. \u201cThere was no one more forceful than Justice Scalia; a very powerful voice is now missing from the bench,\u201d Lazarus adds.<\/p>\n
In his opinion in the 2006 Clean Water Act case known as Rapanos, one of the Pacific Legal Foundation\u2019s biggest triumphs, Scalia criticized \u201cthe immense expansion of federal regulation of land use that has occurred under the Clean Water Act \u2014 without any change in the governing statute \u2014 during the past five Presidential administrations.\u201d<\/p>\n
Scalia\u2019s death dims the Pacific Foundation\u2019s chances in a major environmental case on the horizon. The Supreme Court is expected to eventually review Obama\u2019s Clean Water Rule, which has been stayed by a lower court. Significantly for the arid West, the rule would protect tributaries, no matter how frequently water flows in them, as well as some wetlands, ponds and ditches. \u201cWith Justice Scalia\u2019s departure, it\u2019s fair to say it\u2019s more likely to be upheld,\u201d Schiff says. \u201cThe impacts will be principally in the West. It\u2019s precisely in the areas that are dry most of the year that you have the most significant disputes about the Clean Water Act.\u201d<\/p>\n
The first test of the impact of Scalia\u2019s absence on a Pacific Legal Foundation case may come even sooner. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc. is scheduled for oral arguments next month. At issue is whether a company that mines peat moss in Minnesota can challenge the Corps of Engineers\u2019 decision that wetlands on the company\u2019s property are protected under the Clean Water Act. Schiff says he\u2019s confident that even the current composition of the court will rule in Hawkes\u2019 favor. Although that case centers on a dispute in Minnesota, the decision could have broad ramifications, especially in the West.<\/p>\n
Harvard\u2019s Richard Lazarus says without Scalia on the court, Schiff may be disappointed. Even if the justices are divided on the case 4-4, they may decide to hold it until they have a ninth Justice.<\/p>\n
Of course, it\u2019s not at all clear how Scalia\u2019s replacement will be decided. Obama has promised to nominate one, but the Senate must confirm any new justice, and some Republicans have said the decision should be left to the next president.<\/p>\n
If Obama or a Democratic successor names a Scalia replacement, that new justice likely would be more sympathetic to a broader view of the Clean Water Act to place stricter protections on waterways and wetlands. That could mean that not only would the rule be upheld, but the Court could start siding with environmentalists who believe protections should go even further.<\/p>\n
Scalia\u2019s death also could have big implications for the Clean Power Plan, which Lazarus calls the \u201csingle most important environmental regulation ever.\u201d The plan requires states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector by about 32 percent by 2030. Just days before his death, Scalia provided one of the five votes necessary for the court to stay the rule. It was extraordinary for the Supreme Court to block a rule even before a lower court heard arguments on it. Without Scalia, the prospects that the rule will survive judicial review have improved significantly.<\/p>\n
Scalia\u2019s enthusiasm for environmental and property rights cases made the Supreme Court much more likely to take them up. Stanford University Law Professor Deborah Sivas recalls that 20 years ago, the Supreme Court was not very interested in environmental cases and instead deferred to federal agencies. That changed during Scalia\u2019s nearly 20 years on the bench in large part because of his fervor. \u201cNot only have they taken up a lot of cases, they\u2019ve really gotten into the minutiae of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, and to a fair extent that was driven by Justice Scalia\u2019s interest in playing around in that field,\u201d says Sivas. Going forward, Sivas predicts the court will be less interested and take fewer cases.<\/p>\n
It wasn\u2019t just environmental rules that Scalia scrutinized to see if the executive branch was overstepping its authority, but all sorts of executive decisions. The court is scheduled to hear arguments in April over Obama administration moves to stop the deportation of several million undocumented immigrants, largely parents of citizens or legal residents, and offer them a way to stay and get work permits. Scalia would have set a high bar to ensure the administration followed all proper procedures and didn\u2019t usurp congressional power. Scalia\u2019s death \u201ccould alter the calculus for all of those cases, because they too, often were very closely divided,\u201d says Amanda Tyler, a University of California Berkley School of Law professor.<\/p>\n
Scalia\u2019s absence also makes it much less likely that the Supreme Court will decide against the California Teachers\u2019 Union in a case the court already heard but has not yet decided. During oral arguments, Scalia seemed to side with the conservative majority for what looked likely to be a 5-4 decision to stop public unions from collecting fees from nonmembers. \u201cIt would have crippled the ability of unions to function because they\u2019ve got to be reimbursed in some way,\u201d says Stanford Law professor William Gould, a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.<\/p>\n
As for the Pacific Legal Foundation, Schiff says his group is working on new strategies to come up with cases that will be attractive to a Supreme Court without Scalia.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A conservative legal foundation fears its winning streak may be over.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":106555,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5736,5735],"tags":[944,120,837,738,781,222,60],"naviga_topic":[],"class_list":["post-106554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-local-news","category-news","tag-air-pollution","tag-colorado","tag-dolores-county","tag-environmental-issue","tag-environmental-politics","tag-environmental-pollution","tag-montezuma-county"],"acf":[],"author_name":"dh_admin","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106554\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/106555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106554"},{"taxonomy":"naviga_topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/naviga_topic?post=106554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}