Supreme Court Update | Law & Nature S1E5 | EarthX - video Dailymotion

EarthX Media

EarthX Website: https://earthxmedia.com/   John Cruden, Robert Percival, and Professor Sanne Knudsen review the most relevant Supreme Court cases of the October 2019 Term. Many are recently decided, or argued this term and not yet decided.   About Law & Nature:  Discussions of Environmental Law & Policy developed by the EarthxLaw Advisory Council   Law & Nature promises lively discussions by environmental thought leaders on legal and policy issues of critical importance to environmental protection.  This series is developed by the EarthxLaw Advisory Council, a blue ribbon board of prominent environmental law practitioners brought together by EarthX to assist in developing programs and facilitating dialog on environmental law and policy.   EarthX  Love Our Planet.  The Official Network of Earth Day.    About Us:  At EarthX, we believe our planet is a pretty special place. The people, landscapes, and critters are likely unique to the entire universe, so we consider ourselves lucky to be here. We are committed to protecting the environment by inspiring conservation and sustainability, and our programming along with our range of expert hosts support this mission. We’re glad you’re with us.     EarthX is a media company dedicated to inspiring people to care about the planet. We take an omni channel approach to reach audiences of every age through its robust 24/7 linear channel distributed across cable and FAST outlets, along with dynamic, solution oriented short form content on social and digital platforms. EarthX is home to original series, documentaries and snackable content that offer sustainable solutions to environmental challenges. EarthX is the only network that delivers entertaining and inspiring topics that impact and inspire our lives on climate and sustainability.       EarthX Website: https://earthxmedia.com/    Follow Us:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/earthxmedia/  LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/earthxmedia  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EarthXMedia/  TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@earthxmedia  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@EarthXMedia      How to watch:   United States:   - Spectrum  - AT&T U-verse (1267)  - DIRECTV (267)  - Philo  - FuboTV  - Plex  - Fire TV    #EarthDay #Environment #Sustainability #EcoFriendly #Conservation #EarthX

Transcript

00:00:00Hi, I'm Jeff Sivins, Chair of the EarthX Law Advisory Council. I'm excited to present

00:00:10today this fifth in our series of Law and Nature on U.S. Supreme Court Review of Environmental

00:00:18Cases. Our speakers include John Cruden, Principal of Beverage and Diamond, former Deputy Attorney

00:00:27General of the United States for Environmental Issues, Bob Percival, Robert F. Stanton, Professor

00:00:33of Law at the University of Maryland and Director of the Environmental Law Program, and Sena

00:00:40Knudson, who is Professor of Law at the University of Washington, Stimson Bullitt Endowed Professor

00:00:49of Environmental Law. Take it away, John.

00:00:53Jeff, thank you for that kind introduction. My thanks to EarthX and to Trammell Crow and

00:00:59to Bruce Fogarty for hosting us to what I assure you will be a really fun and informative

00:01:04presentation. We're dealing with the third branch of government. In our papers and all

00:01:11of our news accounts over the last month, you've all been watching the executive branch

00:01:15and you've been watching what Congress is doing, and we're going to turn to the Supreme

00:01:19Court. This is a particularly important term, and we're going to talk to you about things

00:01:25that are occurring right now in the Supreme Court, cases that are being argued. We have

00:01:31a new Supreme Court justice. We still have a coronavirus era. All of those things are

00:01:36happening at the same time that extremely important cases are being heard. Some of the

00:01:42cases heard before the administration changed and some of the cases afterwards, but these

00:01:48are the cases that will affect the United States law all during our lifetime.

00:01:56What we're going to do is we're going to open with all of us, each of us talking a little

00:02:00bit about the Supreme Court generally, what's happening, how many cases, the impact of a

00:02:06new Supreme Court justice. That's happened this term, a new Supreme Court justice. We'll

00:02:10talk about how the court's handling that pandemic. And then we're going to turn to the Supreme

00:02:15Court cases. There have already been three that have been argued this term already. The term

00:02:20started last October. We're kind of midway through. And one of them has already been decided. So

00:02:26we'll talk about those three cases that have already been argued. There are several more

00:02:31that are set for argument. One will be argued on January the 19th. And then we're going to

00:02:38talk about some new cases that have just happened. Just happened, two cases have just been accepted

00:02:44for the Supreme Court. We'll talk about those. And then finally, we're going to use our crystal

00:02:48ball a bit. And we'll talk about a few cases that haven't been yet accepted by the Supreme Court,

00:02:53but we think they might. And so again, if you listen to one case and you're not as interested,

00:02:59stay tuned with us because I think you'll find other cases that you are going to be interested

00:03:05in. All right, so let's talk in general terms about this particular Supreme Court term. So,

00:03:11so far, the court has granted 61 cases. Of those 61, 28, not quite half have been argued,

00:03:20and six have been decided. And let me contrast that with last year. Last year, there were 57

00:03:26opinions. That was the lowest number of opinions since the Civil War. And of course, that was

00:03:31because the pandemic took over. And for a while, and that hasn't happened since the early 1900s

00:03:38when the Spanish flu epidemic occurred, where the Supreme Court actually shut down. Last term,

00:03:44if you remember, we still had, you know, nine justices, of course, but different. Ruth Bader

00:03:53Ginsburg was on the court. She passed away, a great justice that we all miss. But that changes

00:04:00the dynamic of the court. Last year, without question, Justice Roberts was the centerpiece

00:04:08of those decisions. In 97% of the cases, he was in the majority, which is extraordinary. It's

00:04:15sort of hard to imagine that happening this particular term, because of course, it's a

00:04:20completely different Supreme Court just by one different member. As a matter of fact, I'll pass

00:04:27this to you, Bob Percival, but I remember you telling me at one stage when you were clerking for

00:04:34your justice, that he said that every new member of the court creates a completely

00:04:40different Supreme Court. But what kind of things have happened during the coronavirus era?

00:04:47Well, for the first time since 1918, the court had to actually postpone oral arguments

00:04:56when the pandemic hit in March and April. And they ended up postponing some of those arguments

00:05:04until hearing cases in May, which they normally don't hear arguments in May,

00:05:09moved some of them to October. And the public has not been allowed to come to the court. They've

00:05:16been conducting the oral arguments telephonically, and that's had a major impact. Among other things,

00:05:23the way in which they're handling questions from the justices now are doing it in reverse

00:05:28order of seniority. So Chief Justice Roberts asked the first question, followed by Justice

00:05:34Clarence Thomas. And Clarence Thomas used to not ask questions at all. He went for six years

00:05:41without saying a word of oral argument at one point. And now he's fully participating in the

00:05:47arguments and asking some really good questions. It's sort of changed the interplay between the

00:05:53justices at the oral arguments. It used to be Justice Scalia used to like to debate the other

00:06:00justices. And if he didn't like an answer he got from counsel, he would say, well, what I thought

00:06:05you should have said was this. That doesn't happen anymore because they go through all the justices

00:06:10and that eats up almost all the time. And they really have to race through the arguments,

00:06:18given that they're guaranteeing that each justice gets to ask some questions at the oral arguments.

00:06:26I read somewhere that you could hear the toilet flushing in one of the arguments. Did that really

00:06:30happen? Yes. In April, one of the justices had not muted himself, and there was a sound of a

00:06:38toilet flushing. The court said nothing about it at the time. But of course, enterprising reporters

00:06:44caught that because these arguments are now being broadcast on C-SPAN, either on C-SPAN TV

00:06:50or over the internet. And then that started a big campaign to figure out what justice it was.

00:06:56And the betting is that it was Justice Breyer who was going to be the next one to ask a question,

00:07:01who therefore had unmuted himself early.

00:07:06So Sena is now going to talk about the new justice who was confirmed in almost record time

00:07:11in just 30 days, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. That's right, Bob. And John mentioned that

00:07:19every new member, every new justice on the Supreme Court creates a new court.

00:07:24Well, there certainly has been significant turnover and change on the U.S. Supreme Court

00:07:30over the past four years, and perhaps none more polarizing and mired in political controversy

00:07:36than the appointment of Justice Amy Barrett to replace the iconic Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

00:07:42So as we think ahead with what the arrival of Justice Barrett might mean for the Supreme Court,

00:07:49and in particular what we think what that might mean in terms of the court's environmental

00:07:53jurisprudence, we would ordinarily be looking to Justice Barrett's record of decisions over time

00:07:59spent as a lower court judge, or we might look to some of her publications before joining the bench.

00:08:07But noteworthy here, the task of reading the tea leaves and making predictions through her record

00:08:14is a little bit more difficult because Justice Barrett is fairly young in her judicial career.

00:08:20She was appointed in record time, as Bob mentioned, in October of 2020

00:08:31here by President Trump, but it was October of 2017 that she was first appointed to the

00:08:37judiciary at all with an appointment to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. So just three years

00:08:45of a record before us. That's a remarkably short path to the U.S. Supreme Court and not many

00:08:54environmental cases in her history for us to dissect. There was a unanimous decision on the

00:09:04Seventh Circuit in a wetlands case where the court found that the Army Corps hadn't provided sufficient

00:09:11evidence to show that it had jurisdiction to regulate, but that's not much to go on. So

00:09:18given the limited data that we're working from, perhaps the best predictor of Justice Barrett's

00:09:28future on the court may be the fact that she holds herself out as a protege of the late Justice

00:09:33Antonin Scalia. And so we would expect, as he was and as she holds herself out to be,

00:09:40she'll be a bit of a textualist and an originalist on the court. That doesn't necessarily

00:09:50tell us or answer the question of what that pretends for environmental jurisprudence.

00:09:56Many of our major environmental statutes have strong textual support for aggressive

00:10:04congressional goals when it comes to environmental protection, but still Justice Scalia was not

00:10:11seen as a champion of those textual aspirations. And so it still leaves open the question

00:10:19in my mind as to whether Justice Barrett or where she's going to come out on some of these cases.

00:10:25I think much more of a predictor will be her views on federalism and separation of powers

00:10:32between the branches of government. Lastly, I'll just say that if she follows suit

00:10:38and behaves like Justice Scalia, I expect that she will bristle at broad delegations of power

00:10:46to federal agencies like the EPA, but we'll have to stay tuned on the development there.

00:10:53I think at this point, we should dive right in and start talking about the cases that were

00:11:01decided. So I'm going to hand it back over to Bob to talk about Texas versus New Mexico.

00:11:09This is the one case that the Supreme Court heard this term that it's already decided.

00:11:15It's an interstate water dispute. And as climate change becomes more visible

00:11:20and water is in scarcer supply, there have been more and more of these disputes. In fact,

00:11:26there are two other cases we'll talk about involving water disputes later in this program.

00:11:34One thing that happened at Justice Barrett's confirmation hearings that

00:11:38disappointed environmentalists was she was asked whether she thought that climate change

00:11:44that climate change was a serious problem. And she refused to say. Many people had hoped,

00:11:50especially since she's a fervent Catholic, like Justice Kavanaugh, that she would do

00:11:56what he did at his confirmation hearings and say, yes, it is a serious problem,

00:12:00and even make reference to Pope Francis's encyclical, Laudato si', that's an urgent

00:12:07call for the nations of the world to respond to climate change. Well, this first case,

00:12:13Texas versus New Mexico, was argued when the court held its first session this year on Monday,

00:12:20October 5th. And it involved a dispute over water from the Pecos River that flows from

00:12:28eastern New Mexico into western Texas. And what's odd about this is that normally in that part of

00:12:37the country, water is in very short supply. But this case dealt with, what do you do when there's

00:12:44a sudden burst of rain? In this case, it was from the hurricane tropical storm Odile dumped so much

00:12:53rain that there was no way that the Pecos River could hold it all. So it was stored in the

00:13:01federally owned Brantley Reservoir in New Mexico. Texas said, don't send us any more water. We're

00:13:07overwhelmed. We can't keep it. And the question was, because there were evaporative losses

00:13:15between the time the rain happened and when it was finally released and made available to Texas,

00:13:22would those be credited against the portion of water that New Mexico is required to allow to

00:13:29flow into Texas each year under the Pecos River Compact? This is one of only two cases where

00:13:38the court has appointed a river master in order to carry out the agreement in the compact each year

00:13:46to calculate exactly how much water is owed by each state. And here, the river master,

00:13:53with the delay of a few years, ended up giving full credit to New Mexico for the water that

00:14:00was lost due to evaporation while it was being stored at the behest of Texas. And in many of

00:14:07these cases, they're heard within the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to hear disputes

00:14:13between states. And the water controversies are usually the classic example of these original

00:14:20jurisdiction water cases. Usually, the court ends up deferring to the master. In most of these cases,

00:14:27there's what's called a special master. Here, it was just a river master who's not supposed to act

00:14:35like a judge, hearing evidence and making recommendations about how to decide a case,

00:14:41but to be more of a ministerial function of just calculating how to apply the formulas

00:14:47that have been agreed to. And Texas alleged that the river master had exceeded his authority

00:14:54in this case. But nonetheless, the court, by a vote of seven to one, with Justice Barrett not

00:15:01participating because she hadn't been confirmed yet when the case was argued on October 5th,

00:15:06ruled in favor of New Mexico and said that the river master had been right, that his calculations

00:15:13were legally accurate and entirely fair. The only justice who dissented in what was called

00:15:21kind of a prickly dissent was Justice Alito. And it turns out, I discovered afterwards,

00:15:27that the Texas Solicitor General who had argued the case for Texas had been a former law clerk

00:15:33to Justice Alito. And he said that the case should go back and the river master

00:15:41should have to do it over again. But by seven to one, he was outvoted. And so New Mexico won

00:15:49the first of the interstate water disputes that was decided this year. Now, there have been two

00:15:55other cases that have been argued where we're awaiting a decision from the court. And the first

00:16:01of these is a Freedom of Information Act case involving the Endangered Species Act that Sena

00:16:07is going to tell us about now. Yeah, thanks, Bob. That's the United States Fish and Wildlife

00:16:13Service versus Sierra Club case. And it involves the scope of what's called the deliberative

00:16:19process privilege under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA, which is an act that gives ordinary

00:16:26members of the public and organizations like Sierra Club, the ability to request federal

00:16:33government records. Not surprisingly, there are a number of exemptions to FOIA requests.

00:16:40And one of those exemptions allows the government to withhold records that were part of the

00:16:47deliberative process. Getting the scope of the deliberative process privilege right

00:16:55is a difficult balancing act between valuing transparency and accountability on the one hand

00:17:03and fostering candid federal agency deliberation on the other. As Bob mentioned here, the dispute

00:17:11over the FOIA's deliberative process exemption arose in the context of the EPA, the Environmental

00:17:19Protection Agency's adoption of a rule pertaining to cooling water intake structures under the Clean

00:17:27Water Act. And as part of that rulemaking process, the EPA was required to consult under the Endangered

00:17:34Species Act with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marines Fishery Service to make

00:17:42sure that the regulation for cooling water intake structures wouldn't jeopardize the

00:17:48continued existence of an endangered species or otherwise adversely modify critical habitat.

00:17:56By way of brief background, cooling intake structures are used by industrial facilities

00:18:03such as power plants to draw large volumes of water from the ocean or from other water bodies

00:18:09into their cooling systems. And these intakes can harm aquatic life by trapping fish and other large

00:18:17organisms in the intake screens and also by sucking in smaller fish, larvae, eggs, and other organisms

00:18:26into the intake. And so the EPA was required to consult. When they consulted, the Fish and

00:18:33Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service initially found that the EPA's proposed

00:18:40rule would jeopardize species protected under the ESA. And so they drafted a set of 2013 biological

00:18:51opinions reflecting this conclusion and they sent that over to the EPA. The EPA revised its rule

00:18:59based on these biological opinions and sent the revised rule back over to the services

00:19:08for further consultation. And at that point, the services concluded that the new rule

00:19:14would not jeopardize listed species. So in the meantime, in a FOIA request, Sierra Club

00:19:22had asked for copies of that December 2013 biological opinion and other related documents.

00:19:30And the services invoked the deliberative process exemption to withhold those documents. And the

00:19:37case eventually then has made it now to the Supreme Court to help determine the scope of that

00:19:45exemption. Now, this is a case where the court heard argument on November 2nd, 2020. And this

00:19:53was the first case argued before the court since Justice Barrett took the bench. Sierra Club

00:20:01argued that the exemption didn't apply, obviously, explaining that any decision made by an agency

00:20:13that has appreciable legal consequences should not be, the documents should not be withheld under

00:20:21FOIA. Justice Barrett expressed concerns about the fact-intensive nature of applying that kind

00:20:28of standard, the standard of appreciable legal consequences. She and other justices like Justice

00:20:35Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seemed concerned about laying down a bright line rule for clarity on

00:20:42whether the exemption applied. Chief Justice Roberts asked a series of questions suggesting

00:20:49that perhaps the 2013 biological opinion would be pre-decisional and therefore able to be

00:20:57withheld. But Justices Alito, Breyer, and Kagan suggested, on the other hand, that perhaps those

00:21:05documents could be considered final documents. So, as I noted earlier, this is a thorny issue

00:21:11of balancing transparency with robust agency deliberation. And, you know, perhaps of note,

00:21:20there were six amicus briefs filed in this case in support of Sierra Club emphasizing that

00:21:27the services frequently release these kinds of documents in recognition of the important public

00:21:33interest that is at stake by allowing industry and conservation advocates with a deeper understanding

00:21:42of the Section 7 consultation process. So, this is going to be, it's going to be difficult, I

00:21:48predict, for the justices to draw lines in this case. And we'll have to see where they come out

00:21:59on this. Hopefully, we will see a brighter line rule so as to cut down on future litigation on

00:22:06this point. But that wasn't the only case that was argued and that we're going to talk about today.

00:22:16We've got John. He's going to talk to us about the Nestle versus Doe case, which is another case

00:22:22that has been argued in this term. So, I'll turn it over to you, John.

00:22:26Oh, thank you. This case, Nestle and Cargill versus Doe, really tugs at your heartstring.

00:22:34These are six, they're adults now, but they were kids when they, all the things happened to them.

00:22:40And, you know, they're from Mali, but they were forced to work, probably kidnapped to work,

00:22:47in the neighboring, you know, country of the Ivory Coast. And they presented a complaint saying they

00:22:53were forced to work 12 to 14 hours a day and they were beaten if they didn't do enough work.

00:22:57And so, they brought this case. And it's really challenging what the companies did, even though

00:23:04the companies clearly were not kidnapping them. But they're arguing that just by buying the cocoa

00:23:10beans and having this part of their supply route, that they could be charged with abetting, abetting

00:23:18those people who were clearly involved in reprehensible conduct. And so, the argument,

00:23:25though, is under something called the Alien Tort Statute. This is an old, old statute from the

00:23:311700s, but really gives the ability, in some cases, for foreigners to bring cases into United

00:23:38States courts. The Supreme Court, in a couple of decisions over the last four or five years,

00:23:43have narrowed the application of the Alien Tort Statute, but it's still a viable statute. So,

00:23:51coming before in the arguments, before the Supreme Court, were a couple of cases. First of all,

00:23:57can these six individuals, which we call John Doe, because it doesn't actually name their name,

00:24:04so we say they are John Doe, can they actually sue a corporation? And if they can, can they sue

00:24:11a corporation for things that happen exclusively in a foreign country, here in the Ivory Coast?

00:24:18So, both of those are before them. But so, they're really, really, really reprehensible facts.

00:24:25However, tying them to the corporation is very difficult, and that's the way the oral argument

00:24:30played out. The oral argument played out, you know, would we have a, do we want a rule of law

00:24:35that said you can never sue corporations? You could sue individuals, of course, but could you

00:24:39never sue corporations? Do we have a rule of law about how much evidence do you have to have,

00:24:45and how applicable is it that it's only in a foreign country? So, it's very difficult to

00:24:52determine how this case will be decided. The only thing I will say is, historically, and certainly

00:24:59in the last two or three years, the Supreme Court reverses about 70% of the cases they take. So,

00:25:05if you're making a guess, you would guess, well, they'll reverse it. But this is a case out of the

00:25:09Ninth Circuit, which sits predominantly in San Francisco, and they tend to reverse most of the

00:25:13Ninth Circuit cases that they get. So, my guess would be that they would reverse it, but it might

00:25:17be on very narrow grounds, not the broad grounds that Nestle and Cargill are presenting. Okay,

00:25:24but those are the cases that have already been argued. Now, we want to turn and talk to cases

00:25:29that are going to be argued. The Supreme Court has taken them, but they have yet to be argued,

00:25:35at least as argued as of today, and the first one would be our only, really, climate case

00:25:42involving BP versus Baltimore. Bob, you want to take that?

00:25:46Sure. It is nominally a climate case, but the actual issue before the Supreme Court

00:25:53is a very technical issue concerning the reviewability of remand orders by federal

00:25:59district courts denying removal of state cases to federal court. What happened was, a while ago,

00:26:07the city of Baltimore sued 21 domestic and foreign oil companies, arguing that they had,

00:26:16under Maryland state law, committed a tort by promoting their products in the state of Maryland,

00:26:26while knowing that climate change was going to be exacerbated by the use of them, and while

00:26:32deceiving the public about climate change not being a serious problem. These cases are part of

00:26:41a whole bunch of cases where cities or states have sued the fossil fuel industry in state courts.

00:26:50The state of Rhode Island's brought one of these suits in Rhode Island court, the county of Boulder,

00:26:56Colorado, several cities and counties in California have sued, and in every single case,

00:27:03the oil companies have tried to remove the case to federal court. They've alleged that these are

00:27:10really cases that should be governed by federal law and not state law, even though on their face,

00:27:16the only thing they're being accused of doing is violating state law through a fairly garden

00:27:22variety tort. When the cases got to the federal district court in Maryland, that court decided

00:27:32that they actually were truly state law cases and belonged in the circuit court of Baltimore city,

00:27:39and so they remanded the case back, and that was then appealed to the fourth circuit.

00:27:46And the fourth circuit said that there are only two circumstances in which district court remands

00:27:55of cases that were tried to be removed from state to federal court can be reviewed by the

00:28:01U.S. Court of Appeals. That's under 28 U.S.C. section 1447d. The only two grounds on which an

00:28:10appellate court can review remands of removal orders are in civil rights cases. This is not a

00:28:17civil rights case. And in cases removed on grounds of federal officer jurisdiction.

00:28:26And the oil companies are making this fairly far-fetched argument that because the federal

00:28:34government and the defense department bought oil from the various companies, that they were required

00:28:42to produce oil, and that's why they're being sued. I call that the feds made me do it argument.

00:28:51Of course, that didn't fly in the fourth circuit, and then the fourth circuit said,

00:28:56therefore, that's the only basis we can review this. We're sending it back to the district

00:29:02court and to be remanded back to the state court. But the oil companies are arguing that there was

00:29:09one decision, even though there was almost unanimous agreement about how to interpret the federal

00:29:15removal grounds, there was one case from the seventh circuit where Judge Frank Easterbrook

00:29:23of the seventh circuit wrote an opinion in an airline accident case saying that as long as

00:29:31the circuit court is hearing the grounds for removal, they should be able to hear any other

00:29:36grounds that's asserted. And what the companies are doing, and I think this is a way of trying

00:29:44to appeal to what they know is a very strong conservative majority on the Supreme Court that

00:29:49won't like climate cases, is they're actually arguing that these cases should exclusively be

00:29:56governed by federal common law. Well, that's not the way the pleadings are in the state courts.

00:30:03They were only asserting state common law, but they're doing that because in 2011, the Supreme

00:30:10Court in the American electric power case involving a case where several states sued

00:30:15utilities with coal-fired power plants and asked the federal judge to order reductions in greenhouse

00:30:23gas emissions, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal Clean Air Act displaced the

00:30:30federal common law because EPA had authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act

00:30:39as established by the Supreme Court in 2007 in the Massachusetts v. EPA decision. Now,

00:30:47in their brief before the court, and this is actually going to be the last case argued before

00:30:54the Supreme Court before President Biden is inaugurated, the Solicitor General doesn't

00:31:01come right out and say, well, you should basically hold that all climate litigation arises under the

00:31:09federal common law. But he does say there may well be a valid alternative basis for federal

00:31:16jurisdiction based upon the fact that the companies argued that these really are governed exclusively

00:31:23by federal common law and not state law. Now, I suspect that the Biden administration is not going

00:31:31to adopt that position, but that's the position that the Solicitor General has briefed and argued

00:31:37and will be arguing before the Supreme Court. So I sort of see that as kind of an invitation to the

00:31:43conservatives to reach out and decide an issue that shouldn't really be before them. If they're

00:31:50deciding this narrow question of how do you interpret the federal removal statutes of civil

00:31:56procedure and appellate jurisdiction issue, you wouldn't expect any specific ideological split

00:32:04in the court on that issue. And so we'll see what they do, but it's pretty clear what the oil

00:32:12companies would like them to do. But as the city of Baltimore says, that was not argued below,

00:32:20that's not before the justices, it wasn't in the questions presented. So we'll have to look and see

00:32:27what they do with that. Now, another case that's scheduled for argument on February 22nd is another

00:32:35one of these interstate water disputes, Florida versus Georgia. And what's interesting about this

00:32:42case is that even though it's from the eastern U.S. where the water cases used to be very different

00:32:49because it was about having a lot more water than the drought conditions out west, here as

00:32:56Atlanta has grown so rapidly and Georgia's consumption of water has increased a lot,

00:33:02the state of Florida has been arguing that the flow of water through the Apalachicola River

00:33:09has been drying up and they're not getting enough and it's hurting the oysters that are,

00:33:18that Florida would otherwise raise. The litigation has been going on for quite some time

00:33:24and there was a special master who was originally appointed and in 2018,

00:33:33the special master had dismissed the case saying there was no way that any relief could be given

00:33:41to Florida because they didn't really control the flow of water. The argument was that they

00:33:50consume way too much water, so there's less water flowing through dams that the Army Corps

00:33:56of Engineers operates. And he said, therefore, Florida has no standing because I can't provide

00:34:02any redressability. And in a very unusual decision, the Supreme Court by a vote of five to four,

00:34:10you rarely see sharp five to four splits in these interstate water cases, actually reversed the

00:34:17special master's findings and ruled in favor of Florida and said that Florida has a lot of

00:34:26equities on its side because it's quite clear that they're being greatly affected by the reduced flow

00:34:32of water from Georgia. And this was a case where an oral argument Justice Breyer had said,

00:34:38can't there be some way that you can find to give Florida more water? We could actually try this

00:34:43case before ourselves if we wanted to, but the difficulty now is they then replaced the special

00:34:51master, got a new special master, and he essentially has concluded the same thing,

00:34:58that there's no practicable way to give relief to Florida in the case. And in predicting how this

00:35:07might come out, one thing that's greatly to Florida's disadvantage is that two of the five

00:35:15justices that had been in the majority when the case was decided in June 2018,

00:35:21Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who's died, and Justice Kennedy, who's retired, no longer on the

00:35:28court. So in the meantime, all of the justices, Justices Gorsuch, Kagan, Alito, and Thomas,

00:35:39who were in the dissent two years ago, are still on the court. So it's pretty much going to be

00:35:44decided by how Justice Kavanaugh or Barrett feel about this, or it may be that some of the people

00:35:51in the majority will also agree to uphold the special master's ruling. Now, this case will be

00:35:59argued after the Biden administration has taken over, and the question is, would they be more

00:36:07sympathetic to Florida? If you were going to look just on standard political social choice theory,

00:36:16what state is more important to the Biden administration right now? The state of Georgia?

00:36:21The state of Florida? I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the notion that Florida is going to be

00:36:28able to win this one, even though they certainly are hurting for water right now. So there are two

00:36:35other cases that are scheduled for oral argument, or not, that are going to be argued this year.

00:36:41One's already scheduled for oral argument that same day on February 22nd, and John's going to

00:36:47tell you about them now. Thank you. You were pointing out that some of these cases that we're

00:36:54talking about are really going to be argued by the Solicitor General's Office of the Trump

00:36:59administration, and all the pleadings were by the Trump administration, but now you and I are

00:37:04talking about new cases in February. That'll be a new Solicitor General. There'll be a new Solicitor

00:37:10General arguing before the Supreme Court. We don't know who that is right now, and so there could be

00:37:15new positions, and there's no better example of that than the border wall case. Everyone, all of

00:37:21you remember what a hue and cry there was in the press, and a campaign promise by President Trump.

00:37:30He wanted a border wall, and he wanted a wall that Mexico would pay for, and of course Mexico did not

00:37:36pay for it, and that resulted in 2018 and 2019 to a shutdown of the government. They could not agree

00:37:43on appropriations, and when they finally did, the Trump administration still did not have all of

00:37:50the money it needed to do the border wall, and so the President declared a national emergency

00:37:57which gave him some authority to reprogram something in the magnitude of two and a half

00:38:03billion dollars that came out of the Department of Defense's Appropriation Act, and then use that

00:38:09for the border wall. That's the case. That's the case that has been challenged now in the

00:38:16Ninth Circuit through the District Court in the Ninth Circuit, challenging whether or not

00:38:20President Trump could really do that. Could he really use Department of Defense money appropriated

00:38:25for the Department of Defense? Could he reprogram that and use it for the wall, which he is currently

00:38:30doing? That is currently happening on several occasions now. They've gone to the Supreme Court,

00:38:37and the Supreme Court stayed an injunction. There was an injunction by at the District Court level

00:38:42that said you can't do that anymore. Supreme Court disagreed. Then the Ninth Circuit on the

00:38:48merits ruled that President Trump was wrong. They again went to the Supreme Court and said,

00:38:53would you stay, you know, would you lift that, lift that your injunction so you can't have

00:38:58anything more done on the wall? Supreme Court disagreed, and so the case that's before the

00:39:03Supreme Court going to be argued during the Biden administration is whether or not that was proper,

00:39:11whether or not the assistant or secretary or the assistant secretary who made that decision under

00:39:16the Appropriations Act, whether or not they could really do that. And even if they could,

00:39:22is they're basically standing by the Sierra Club and environmental groups to challenge that.

00:39:27I can only imagine that there might be a completely different position

00:39:36by the Biden administration about the wall, but if there is, they're going to have to work very

00:39:41quickly after they come into power to affect an argument that's already been briefed, already been

00:39:47set to go forward on February 22nd. I think while I'm doing this, I want to turn to a case

00:39:57that you probably haven't heard anything about because the Supreme Court just took a cert on the

00:40:04case. It just happened, and so I'm going to tell you just briefly about a case where Guam has sued

00:40:10the United States. So the country of Guam has sued the United States, and they want money.

00:40:17This is a somewhat famous landfill called the Ordot landfill in Guam. It's been in effect for

00:40:2460 years. It's been a horrendous problem in Guam there with just illegal dumping,

00:40:31and the Department of Justice some years ago sued them under the Clean Water Act

00:40:40for violating the Clean Water Act because the discharge was actually adverse to impacting

00:40:46waters in the United States. They had a consent decree in something like 2004 prohibiting that

00:40:53action requiring cleanup, and then Guam didn't do what they were supposed to do. So one of the

00:40:59first times I can remember in history, they put Guam in a receivership. They put a receivership

00:41:04in 2008 to make sure that Guam did all the things they were supposed to do to protect the health

00:41:09of the Guam people. Now fast forward until 2017, and Guam sues the United States, but it's really

00:41:16the Navy saying, we want money. We want money for the cleanup, and the district court agrees.

00:41:22This case can go forward. It can go forward under the Superfund laws. It went to the D.C.

00:41:27Circuit, and the D.C. Circuit said, no, you can't. You cannot go forward, and the reason why you can't

00:41:33is because of that Clean Water Act consent decree 13 years ago. So 13 years ago, that's what

00:41:41triggered your right to what we call contribution. Contribution means you're sharing the pain.

00:41:47You have pain because clearly Guam is going to have to spend some money, but you want to share

00:41:51that pain and have other people contribute to it, and that's under a section called 113H of the

00:41:56Superfund or CERCLA law. So the D.C. Circuit said no to that, but that's the case. The Supreme Court

00:42:03just took CERC to determine whether or not the country of Guam is barred because of an old

00:42:12consent decree under a different statute or not. It's just happened. Interesting case that's

00:42:19happened. There's another case, though, called Hawley Frontier that the Supreme Court just

00:42:25recently took. Bob, what's that case about? Most people didn't expect the court to take it, so it

00:42:33was kind of a surprise on Friday when they announced that it was. It involves a pretty

00:42:38narrow question of interpreting a portion of the Clean Air Act. When Congress added the renewable

00:42:46fuel standard that requires oil companies to blend in an increasingly share of biofuels,

00:42:54renewable fuels, when they make gasoline, they realized that it might be harder for small refiners

00:43:03to comply with that. So they added this section to 211O, the renewable fuel standard,

00:43:11that allows EPA to grant a temporary extension of exemptions to small refineries if they can

00:43:21show that they're having economic hardship. And the Department of Energy had to do a study that

00:43:27said, yes, some small refiners will have economic hardship, so EPA can exempt them from this

00:43:35renewable fuel standard requirement. The section actually says, as its title, temporary extension,

00:43:44which allows them, if they can show that they're still having hardship, to get a two-year, at least

00:43:50a two-year extension of that exemption. Now, the Tenth Circuit said, because the word it uses,

00:43:59the statutory language says, extend the exemption. Any refiner who previously no longer had the

00:44:09economic hardship, and therefore didn't have the exemption, can't get it back. You have to

00:44:17be extending an exemption that already is in existence. And so it's an issue of statutory

00:44:24interpretation. Holly Frontier is saying the word extend in the dictionary can mean to make available,

00:44:34it can also mean to increase the length of something you already have. We think it should

00:44:40be interpreted to make available, so if we have economic hardship in one year but not another,

00:44:45we should be able to get the exemption back. There's a similar case before the D.C. Circuit.

00:44:52There's no obvious circuit conflict yet, because this is the first time this issue has been raised.

00:44:58The Solicitor General said, until there's a circuit conflict, there's no way the court

00:45:04should take this case, but it took it anyway. Solicitor General also said, even if they win the

00:45:10case, it's not clear that they can still establish that they're entitled to an economic hardship

00:45:16exemption. And I would imagine in the Biden administration, they'd be loathe to grant very

00:45:21many of those, because they'd want to encourage the use of biofuels. So we'll find out how they

00:45:30interpret the statutory language. We may get a nice debate by the court on theories of statutory

00:45:36interpretation, and what the real dictionary meaning was in the word extend in this portion

00:45:43of the Clean Air Act. Yeah, so we just heard about some cases where the court has very recently

00:45:51granted cert, and we are keeping our eye on a number of cases that would be of interest,

00:45:59and one of them is Montana versus Washington. So while we normally think of the U.S. Supreme

00:46:05Court as hearing cases appealed from the lower courts, this is a case where Montana and Wyoming

00:46:12filed a complaint asking the court to exercise its original jurisdiction in a coal export terminal

00:46:20dispute with the state of Washington. That is, this case originates in the U.S. Supreme Court

00:46:27because it's a dispute between states. In particular, Montana and Wyoming assert that

00:46:35Washington violated the dormant commerce clause and the foreign commerce clause when it used its

00:46:42authority that's given to states under the Clean Water Act to block a coal export terminal project

00:46:49along the Columbia River. That terminal was intended to export 16 train loads of coal per day

00:46:58from Wyoming's Powder River Basin to markets in Asia. Now, as framed by Montana and Wyoming,

00:47:05the case raises interesting issues of whether coastal states can block landlocked states from

00:47:12accessing ports based on the coastal states' own environmental objectives like curbing downstream

00:47:20carbon emissions. The state of Washington filed a motion in opposition claiming that the court

00:47:27would simply be wasting its time if it were to exercise jurisdiction because the coal export

00:47:33terminal project was not really a conflict among the states. Washington emphasizes that this is a

00:47:41private project proposed by a private company on private land. What's more, Washington argues that

00:47:48the project is dead in the water even if it did receive the state of Washington's 401 certification.

00:47:57Washington explains that the 401 certification was just one of several regulatory hurdles

00:48:04that the company had failed to clear. And because of that, Washington argues that

00:48:11these claims that are brought by Montana and Wyoming are not redressable by the court, that

00:48:18the court couldn't cure the harm being alleged here, and that therefore the parties lack standing

00:48:25and that therefore the court has no power to decide this case. Now, importantly, the Washington

00:48:32Department of Ecology denied the required 401 certification under the Clean Water Act

00:48:38with prejudice, meaning that the company seeking the permit or seeking the certification could

00:48:45not later seek approval even upon presenting different or additional evidence. So Montana

00:48:55and Wyoming argue that that leaves the door open and that the court still can provide redress by

00:49:02undoing the denial with prejudice because then at least the company could pursue this project

00:49:08again in the future. Notably, none of the other projects or none of the other permits involved in

00:49:14this dispute were denied with prejudice. So the court has yet to make a decision as to whether to

00:49:21take this case. The Solicitor General was invited in early October to file a brief expressing the

00:49:29government's views. Nothing's been filed so far and in any event those views may change with the change

00:49:36of presidential administration, but that would be an interesting case if it were taken.

00:49:45There's another case, there's a lot of cases actually that are interesting in the

00:49:51on-deck circle. The next case I want to talk about is Massachusetts Lobsterman's Association versus

00:49:57Ross. This is a case that challenges President Obama's use of the Antiquities Act in September

00:50:04of 2016 to establish a 3.2 million acre Northeast Canyons and Seamount Marine National Monument

00:50:14more than 100 miles off the Atlantic coast. Now the Antiquities Act of 1906 confers discretion

00:50:23on the president to declare objects of historic and scientific interest as national monuments

00:50:32on land owned or controlled by the federal government and under the act those parcels

00:50:39that are designated as national monuments are supposed to be confined to the smallest area

00:50:45compatible with the proper care and management of the objects that are to be protected. So here

00:50:53the petitioner, Lobsterman Association, argues that the president, President Obama, did not have

00:50:59authority to protect areas beyond the territorial seas of the U.S. and that the size of the monument

00:51:06exceeded the smallest area compatible with what was necessary. So on the issue of presidential

00:51:14authority, the Lobsterman Association argues that the monument not only exceeds the president's

00:51:21power under the Antiquities Act, but that it circumvents another congressional statute called

00:51:28the National Marine Sanctuary Act, which requires a specific process for designating marine sanctuaries

00:51:36subject to review by Congress and affected states. So this is interesting because

00:51:42on June 17, 2020, President Trump signed a proclamation lifting fishing restrictions

00:51:51in the monument, which is not part of this lawsuit. That's a decision that

00:51:56environmental groups are challenging in a separate lawsuit, but that proclamation does not

00:52:02actually moot the question of whether the president has authority to designate monuments in this area

00:52:09at all. In fact, the fact that President Trump lifted restrictions would suggest that

00:52:16President Trump also believes to have authority to act in this space. So here we have the

00:52:25Solicitor General filing on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce Ross filed a brief on

00:52:32December 4th opposing the grant of cert in this case, and there the solicitor is arguing that

00:52:41the United States does have jurisdiction in these waters in what's called the Exclusive Economic

00:52:48Zone, and that that jurisdiction of the United States is firmly established. It was an area

00:52:56that President Reagan established this area in 1983 by proclamation, and since then

00:53:03Congress has enacted a number of statutes that regulate economic activity in and the conservation

00:53:09of marine environments in the Exclusive Economic Zone. So the solicitor is relying on

00:53:17congressional statutes as evidence of U.S. jurisdiction here and arguing that therefore

00:53:24the president has authority under the Antiquities Act to designate monuments in this area as well.

00:53:34The solicitor also points out that previous presidents, so President George W. Bush,

00:53:40have also established monuments in marine areas that fall within the Exclusive Economic

00:53:48Zone. So President Bush established the Northern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument in 2006.

00:54:00The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a similar opposition brief, and this case was

00:54:07distributed for conference on January 8th. So that's one case that we're keeping our eye on,

00:54:17and the last case that I'm going to talk about anyway on the on-deck circle is a case called

00:54:22United States versus Utah and Kane County. This is a case in which Kane County and Utah

00:54:31sued the federal government to claim title to rights-of-way on 15 roads that were crossing

00:54:38federal public land in Utah. Two environmental groups, the Southern Utah Wilderness

00:54:46Alliance, or SUA, and the Wilderness Society sought to intervene in that litigation because of their

00:54:53interest in preventing possible harm to surrounding area from increased traffic if the

00:55:01state of Utah and Kane County were to be held to have title to those rights-of-way.

00:55:08Now in 2009 and 2011, just to give a sense of how long these pieces of litigation go on,

00:55:182009-2011, SUA was denied intervention in this litigation on the grounds that their interest

00:55:25was adequately represented by the federal government, but then SUA moved again for

00:55:31intervention in 2018, a new presidential administration arguing that the litigation

00:55:39position of the U.S. had changed and that they should therefore be allowed to intervene.

00:55:46The district court denied SUA the right to intervene and then a divided panel of the

00:55:5110th circuit reversed. It held that SUA was actually entitled to intervene because its

00:55:57environmental concerns would not adequately be represented by the U.S. in defending its title

00:56:04over the land. And so this is an interesting case that at its heart involves a dispute

00:56:12of rights-of-way over public land, but the Supreme Court is being asked to weigh in on

00:56:17an issue of federal civil procedure and whether or not under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of

00:56:24Civil Procedure, these environmental groups have a demonstrated right to intervene in the case.

00:56:32Perhaps of interest, this case is part of a larger landscape of similar quiet title actions

00:56:39that have been filed since the early 2000s by the state of Utah. In fact,

00:56:46since the early 2000s, the state of Utah legislature has passed a number of statutes

00:56:52authorizing and funding these particular kinds of quiet title cases, and the legislature has

00:57:02expressly declared it to be the policy of the state to claim and preserve by lawful means

00:57:09the rights to determine and affect the disposition and use of federal lands within the state. So this

00:57:16is interesting. SUA is a significant and longtime wilderness watch group in Utah,

00:57:23and it's a repeat player in opposing these actions. This is a case where this case has

00:57:33actually been distributed for conference on December 4th, and then again on the 11th,

00:57:39and then again on January 8th. So it seems to be one that the court can't quite decide whether it

00:57:48wants to tackle this issue. Interestingly, Justice Gorsuch came to the Supreme Court via the

00:57:57Tenth Circuit, so he would surely know a thing or two about these rights-of-way cases.

00:58:05None of the other justices hail from the western lands, and so they're maybe less familiar

00:58:15with these particular cases, though surely they're quite familiar with the federal rules

00:58:22of civil procedure. So we've got a couple more cases on the on-deck circle that we are tracking,

00:58:34but I will pass the baton back to John to talk about those.

00:58:41I mentioned in the Border Wall case that the Supreme Court intervened and stayed the

00:58:47injunction. We've seen more of that than ever before in the Supreme Court recently. Bob,

00:58:53I know you've been looking at that in the context of a more significant climate case that's still

00:59:00pending in the Ninth Circuit, what I think of as the children's case, Juliana. What does the Supreme

00:59:06Court do in that case? They actually ended up staying the trial that was about to start taking

00:59:14place in a case where several children, at least they were children at the time the suit was filed

00:59:21five years ago, sued the federal government claiming that it had failed to protect them from

00:59:29the effects of climate change, and that violated the federal government's substantive due process

00:59:35obligation to do so. The Supreme Court stopped the trial essentially, and then was able to get

00:59:43the Ninth Circuit to step in and get the district judge to grant interlocutory review, and then a

00:59:51panel of the Ninth Circuit about almost a year ago ruled that this plaintiff did not have standing

00:59:59to sue the federal government over climate change because the courts were not capable of providing

01:00:05redress in coming up with a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that that was a job for

01:00:11Congress and not the court. That's now on a petition for re-hearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit,

01:00:18and there's a big debate in the environmental community about would you, if you lost that

01:00:24petition for re-hearing en banc, take it up to the Supreme Court where you know the six to three

01:00:29conservative majority is likely to quash it. Yeah, I should actually mention just quickly on the

01:00:37Penney's case, and then we'll close with Sonny talking about the Keystone Pipeline case.

01:00:45People don't know this, but the eminent domain authority, which we think of as being used

01:00:52exclusively by the federal government, that's not really true. FERC, when it authorizes,

01:01:03can actually delegate that authority, and they did so in this case. This is a case where you

01:01:08have a natural gas pipeline over 100 miles going from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. It was authorized,

01:01:17but part of it was going through land that New Jersey state had an interest in. So now you are

01:01:25abutting the statute versus the constitutional sovereign authority of the state, and they have

01:01:31abutted up against each other, and so now the court is saying, the court ruled on this Court of

01:01:39Appeals saying, notwithstanding the fact that you could have a lawful delegation to a non-federal

01:01:46government, this is Penney's having that delegation, notwithstanding that that might

01:01:51be lawful, it could be unlawful, constitutionally unlawful, if you're butting up against something

01:01:58that the state has a significant interest in. So they ruled against that. That case now is

01:02:06that the justices have asked for the views of the Solicitor General, and the Solicitor General

01:02:14saying the decision below is incorrect and should be reversed. The Supreme Court hasn't done anything

01:02:20with that, but that's another case that we have been looking at. We're going to close our

01:02:25discussion, though, of the Keystone Pipeline case, which has a lot of attention, but we're looking

01:02:29pretty narrowly at that same issue that Bob was talking us through, and it's another case like

01:02:34the Border Wall case where the Supreme Court judge jumped in before the case was decided

01:02:39and stayed part of it. So Sonia, what happened in that case?

01:02:44Yeah, so this is a case involving the construction of the Keystone Pipeline,

01:02:49as John mentioned. One of the regulatory hurdles to pipeline construction is securing permits under

01:02:56the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wherever the pipeline crosses streams

01:03:02or wetlands, and in meeting that regulatory requirement, the Keystone Pipeline project

01:03:08relied heavily on what's called the Nationwide Permit 12, which is a general permit issued by

01:03:15the Army Corps that saves developers from securing individual permits. The nationwide permits can

01:03:22then be used when certain activities in federal jurisdictional waters and wetlands have no more

01:03:28than minimal adverse environmental impacts. In litigation, however, in reliance on that nationwide

01:03:39permit, that reliance on the nationwide permit was challenged because of the alleged cumulative

01:03:45impacts from the Keystone Pipeline on endangered species as a result of the multiple stream

01:03:51crossings. So in May of 2020, a U.S. District Court for the District of Montana held that the Army

01:03:58Corps had violated Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by allowing the use of the nationwide

01:04:07permit, but by failing to consult and consider the cumulative impacts on listed species.

01:04:15The District Court vacated the use of Keystone Pipeline Project, their reliance on

01:04:25Nationwide Permit 12, but at the same time issued a nationwide injunction barring the Corps from

01:04:34using it to allow water crossings in other projects, other pipeline cases. And so what's

01:04:42interesting here is, as John and Bob mentioned, rather than this case proceeding through appeal

01:04:49up to the U.S. Supreme Court through the regular lengthy process, the Supreme Court

01:04:57jumped in in July of 2020 and stayed the vacature order, lifting the injunction, the nationwide

01:05:06injunction, for all pipelines except for the Keystone XL Pipeline. So the Keystone XL Pipeline

01:05:14is still enjoined from using Nationwide Permit 12, but the injunction as to other projects

01:05:24was lifted. On the regulatory front, the Army Corps has responded by in September

01:05:32proposing to reissue Nationwide Permit 12 and effectively split it into three, one that would

01:05:40deal with oil and gas pipelines, another that would deal with electric lines and utilities,

01:05:45and a third that would deal with transportation of water and sewage. And that proposed Nationwide

01:05:52Permit 12 was actually finalized just this year on January 4th. But it's an interesting case,

01:06:03not just because the Keystone Pipeline is of interest, but also because of

01:06:09the pattern of the U.S. Supreme Court jumping in in some of these high-profile cases.

01:06:17So to our EarthX audience, that brings to a close our overview of the Supreme Court term as it

01:06:24exists right now. If you remember what we said at the outset, we talked about a Supreme Court term

01:06:30that bridges one administration now going into the Biden administration. It has a new justice,

01:06:35and as Bob has pointed out, we're in the middle of a pandemic and they're still dealing with that.

01:06:39We're still having remote arguments today. We gave you an overview of the one case that's

01:06:44been decided and the several cases that are to be argued, and then the newest cases, the newest

01:06:50cases that have not yet been set for argument, but the Supreme Court will take. And then we

01:06:56tried to give you a glimpse into all of them. There's hundreds of cases pending right now.

01:07:01We tried to pick out three or four of the environmental cases that we thought the

01:07:04Supreme Court might be interested in. And then Bob Bassani just ended with a current issue,

01:07:11and that is the Supreme Court taking more and more cases that they might issue a stay-in,

01:07:15as they did in the Keystone Pipeline, the Border Wall, and the Juliana case,

01:07:20even before that decision was over. We want all of you to keep following the Supreme Court,

01:07:25keep looking what they're doing. It's such an extraordinary and important institution

01:07:29in the life of environmental law in the United States.

01:07:32And with that, we bid you all the very best from the three of us.

Supreme Court Update | Law & Nature S1E5 | EarthX

Category

Transcript

Recommended