Another contributing factor could simply be that four of the five environmental-themed cases on review came from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Robert L. Fischman, an environmental law professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
The 9th Circuit, which hears appeals in federal cases from Alaska to Arizona, is by far the largest of the 13 circuit courts. For many years, the court has held the distinction of having the most cases overturned on review.
"The fact that the 9th is so big geographically it is certainly a factor," said Thomas Jackson, a Washington D.C.-based environmental lawyer who argued on behalf of corporate trade groups in the Superfund cases. "There do tend to be a number of environmental cases that arise out of the 9th Circuit as well. I think historically, environmental organizations probably preferred to file in the 9th Circuit because they believed it was a circuit that was sympathetic to their viewpoints."
Elite attorneys 'made a big difference'
Environmental issues have become increasingly popular among the elite group of private-sector attorneys who regularly argue high-profile cases before the Supreme Court. This could explain why the justices decided to accept these particular cases, according to Georgetown University law professor Richard Lazarus, who has represented more than 40 clients in environmental cases before the court.
"Some of the best Supreme Court lawyers in the country represented industry groups and should be given credit for successfully getting review," said Lazarus, who argued on behalf of the group Riverkeeper Inc. in one of the Clean Water Act suits before the court this term. "This was the term in which expert Supreme Court private-sector attorneys came into environmental law and made a big difference."
Lazarus pointed to former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who successfully represented Coeur Alaska and the state in the case decided earlier this week, and Maureen Mahoney of Latham & Watkins LLP, head of the D.C. firm's appellate and constitutional practice, who represented the winning sides in both the Superfund and Clean Water Act cases.
"These are a handful of extremely well-respected and well-known Supreme Court lawyers who receive a great deal of deference from the justices, who only hear about 70 or 75 cases per year," Lazarus said. "Supreme Court law firms often can't charge top dollar for these cases because they involve a 'no pay' client -- such as a criminal defendant suing on 4th Amendment grounds. Environmental cases with major industry groups and all of those who will file amicus briefs can be taken straight to the bank."
Lazarus returned to the subject of possible Supreme Court deference when speculating about why the justices declined to hear a high-profile case involving confusion created by the court's 2006 decision in Rapanos v. U.S., a global climate change case.
"U.S. v. McWane Inc. was absolutely cert worthy. The solicitor general petitioned for review, there was a circuit conflict and it involved a major threshold question in environmental law," he said. "So why did the court decline to hear the case? Miguel Estrada wrote a very effective brief in opposition."
Estrada, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP who was nominated for a circuit seat by President George W. Bush, has argued more than 17 cases before the high court and briefed many others.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add Commentfinally
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally an intelligent decision from the supreme court. But I doubt if this is any indication to what direction the court is heading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the court exhibits an extreme hostility towards eco-religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Court must not let the Constitution get in the way of environmental ideologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStrange, the Supreme Court decides cases based on law rather then the 9th district way of making law based on case decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least one branch of our government has retained some sanity and common sense! Good job boys ....... and girl.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompletely Off Topic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeading over to the stretching area, the Score composed by Jeremy Soule, First Light,
'father's' emotional intelligence into my well-being. Fathering fair composure, Soule's Scores diligently bombard each nonvacant compile of assurance I honor as sanction of truth. Auriel's Ascension, a score of silent faith similar in depth as Gorecki's Symphony #3 OP 36, awakens me as a sure bound partner.
The Supreme Court's function is to improve uniformity across state and national laws, uphold the Constitution and in very limited ways make new law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestions of science should be resolved in the lower courts. Procedure and definition, not facts are their primary domain. The Supreme Court is enforcing the "Rule of Law" nature of our government. Decisions are rightly made on the narrowest of grounds to avoid grand sweeping changes that are later reversed. The Court's role is not disrupting, but stability.
Congress is the place to work for change. Don't expect or even desire the Court to lead. Please read Justice O'Connor's book for more insight to the Supreme Court.
I saw Kennedy and O'Connor giving a joint interview the other day on TV. Kennedy was pontificating how if anyone thinks being a Republican or a Democrat has anything to do with Supreme Court decisions, they don't know how the court works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRepublicans are hostile to anything having to do with cleaning up earth's environment. Many of them consider Global Warming to be a cultish fad, used by people who want to bring down the United States.
Five Republicans on the Supreme Court - and five Justices who can be depended upon to look with hostility on anything brought before it by an environmental group.
So much for judicial independence.