Consultants, the Environment, and the Law

Conventional wisdom assumes that private-sector businesses will oppose, undermine, or distort government regulation. That assumption also underpins many areas of theoretical inquiry; theorists commonly assume that effective public-law regimes must be protected from the self-interested machinations of businesses, or that such protection is such a lost cause that most public regulation is doomed to fail. This Article investigates a different set of relationships between businesses and regulation. It does so by using the environmental consulting industry, which helps businesses and governments comply with environmental regulations, as a case study. An empirical inquiry into two subfields of the industry reveals that for-profit, private-sector actors can play distinctive and active roles in public-law regimes, and that these distinctive roles are motivated by a combination of economic incentives and cultural orientation. These findings have direct implications for several areas of inquiry, including studies of public choice theory, privatization, social movements, and the historic evolution of environmental regulation. Most importantly, they reveal how private actors can bolster public law

Critical Habitat and the Challenge of Regulating Small Harms.

This Article investigates how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the courts are implementing the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition on “adverse modification” of “critical habitat.” That prohibition appears to be one of environmental law’s most ambitious mandates, but its actual meaning and effect are contested. Using a database of over 4,000 “biological opinions,” interviews with agency staff, and a review of judicial decisions considering the adverse modification prohibition, this Article assesses the extent to which the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the courts are relying on the adverse modification prohibition to provide habitat protection. It also assesses the extent to which these groups are providing habitat protection by invoking other Endangered Species Act provisions. This Article concludes that although agency practice and some judicial decisions substantially depart from statutory requirements, with problematic results, the agencies are still providing substantial habitat protection through other means. It then considers the implications of these findings, first for ongoing debates about Endangered Species Act implementation and reform and then for broader discussions about legal strategies for responding to small environmental harms and the incremental degradation they cause

The Realities of Takings Litigation

This Article presents an empirical study of takings litigation against the United States. It reviews the cohort of takings cases filed against the federal government between 2000 and 2014, tracing each case from filing through final disposition. The result is a picture of takings litigation that is at odds with much of the conventional wisdom of the field. That conventional wisdom suggests that most takings cases will involve alleged regulatory takings; that the most intellectually challenging issues will arise within the field of regulatory takings; and, more broadly, that takings litigation will play an important role in the United States\u27 efforts to balance government regulation against individual liberty. This Article instead reveals that most takings litigation against the federal government involves alleged physical takings; that key recurring questions involve the selection of a method of takings analysis and the nature of property rights rather than the nuances of regulatory takings standards; and that takings litigation is only peripherally relevant to relationships between federal regulators and most regulated entities. These findings apply only to takings litigation against the federal government; takings litigation against state and local governments was not part of this study. Even with that significant caveat, these findings demonstrate the need to recalibrate the focus of takings theory and doctrine. At a general level, they call for heightened attention to alleged physical takings. More specifically, they call for more careful policing of the boundaries between methods of takings analysis, for more focus on the types of property rights that should receive takings protection, and for reexamination of the premise that almost all physical takings claims should be subject to categorical analyses

Little Streams and Legal Transformations

In 1972, Congress passed a statute whose text offered sweeping protection for waterways across the nation. In theory, those protections extended to little streams. Actual practices were different, not just in the 1970s but also well into the 1990s. But over the past twenty years, small streams have become a central focus of regulatory protection, with the extent and type of those protections continuing to evolve to this day, and with additional changes still possible. The future of that evolution is uncertain, and it may hang in the balance; Congress, the incoming administration, or the courts could nip much of this progress in the bud. But so long as it lasts, the story of little streams illustrates the continuing ability of environmental law to evolve and change, and the incremental—and often unnoticed—ways in which those changes occur