"Winter involved a much more complicated procedural situation," he said. "The environmental community closely followed the Summers case because these groups often face this issue when trying to assert their own interests in a lawsuit."
Austin said he remained hopeful that the Summers decision will have a limited impact.
"It could have been much worse, but it was decided in a way that the consequences were not as bad as they could have been," he said. "The ruling was confined to the facts of that case and the specific plaintiffs. Even though [Justice Antonin] Scalia included a lot of language that was very dismissive of environmental groups, he did not adopt the very extreme position argued by the government."
PLF's Gieseler said he expects the Navy sonar decision will have more influence than some believe.
"There was a unique context in the sonar case -- national security -- but nothing that limited that holding to national security interests going forward," Gieseler said. "We're talking about an injunction that would impact the economy or other constitutional matters such as property. We don't see any reason that the principles underlying Winter wouldn't be applicable in these cases."
Meanwhile, the consolidated CERCLA cases could have an immediate impact on lower courts' decision-making, said John Nagle, an environmental law professor at the University of Notre Dame's law school.
"Burlington Northern was the most surprising given that the majority ended up addressing issues that the Supreme Court had never really addressed but had been thought to have been resolved by the lower courts decades ago," he said.
Looking ahead
Earlier this month, the court announced it would hear a case concerning the private property rights of waterfront landowners in Florida when it begins a new term on Oct. 5.
In Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida, the justices will consider whether the state Supreme Court violated the Constitution's takings clause when it upheld a Florida government plan to create a state-owned public beach between private waterfront land and the Gulf of Mexico.
Meanwhile, opinion is mixed on whether the court's new term will feature as many high-profile environmental-themed cases.
"There might be a bit of a lull in activity, but as the new administration becomes more active in rule making, we will see more issues being litigated and they will eventually find their way to the Supreme Court," Nagle said.
Rather than environmental groups, which often initiated the lawsuits against Bush-era regulations, industry groups will begin opposing actions, especially as the Obama administration overturns rules, Kenna said.
"We're more likely to see regulated businesses being the ones looking for help at the court rather than the government simply because they'll be the ones challenging more of the policies of the Obama administration," he said.
In the next few terms, PLF's Gieseler suggested the court will likely consider cases involving global warming or, potentially, a cap-and-trade law.
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.