Public-Private Conservation Agreements and the Greater Sage-Grouse

In 2015, the Obama Administration announced its conservation plans for the greater sage-grouse, an iconic bird of the intermountain west.Political leadership at the time described those plans as the “largest landscape-level conservation effort in U.S. history,”and they served as the foundation for a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) that a listing of the bird was not warranted under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The Trump Administration appears poised to substantially amend the plans, although an array of interested parties have urged that the plans be left intact. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, conservation of the greater sage-grouse exemplifies persistent controversies about federal protections for declining species and the effects such protections may have on property owners and economic actors

Governance and Uncertainty

Government actors create law against a backdrop of uncertainty. Limited information, unpredictable events, and lack of understanding interfere with accurately predicting a legal regime’s costs, benefits, and effects on other legal and social programs and institutions. Does the availability of no-fault divorce increase the number of terminated marriages? Will bulk-collection of telecommunications information about American citizens reveal terrorist plots? Can a sensitive species breed in the presence of oil and gas wells? The answers to these questions are far from clear, but lawmakers must act nonetheless. The problems posed by uncertainty cut across legal fields. Scholars and regulators in a variety of contexts recognize the importance of uncertainty, but no systematic, generally-applicable framework exists for determining how law should account for gaps in information. This Article suggests such a framework and develops a novel typology of strategies for accounting for uncertainty in governance. This typology includes “static law,” as well as three varieties of “dynamic law.” “Static law” is a legal rule initially intended to last in perpetuity. “Dynamic law” is intended to change, and includes: (1) durational regulation, or fixed legal rules with periodic opportunities for amendment or repeal; (2) adaptive regulation, or malleable legal rules with procedural mechanisms allowing rules to change; and (3) contingent regulation, or malleable legal rules with triggering mechanisms to substantively change to the rules. Each of these strategies, alone or in combination, may best address the uncertainty inherent in a particular lawmaking effort. This Article provides a diagnostic framework that lawmakers can use to identify optimal strategies. Ultimately, this approach to uncertainty yields immediate practical benefits by enabling lawmakers to better structure governance

The Invisibility of Jurisdictional Procedure and Its Consequences

Modern standing doctrine has been the subject of substantial scholarly inquiry. Critics charge that it allows judges to resolve cases based on their own ideologies, favoring corporations over individuals and those who harm over those harmed. The doctrine likewise disserves social justice, preventing adjudication of indisputably meritorious claims. Yet the focus on the substance of standing doctrine has obscured an equally significant impediment to justice created by the procedures that judges use to adjudicate questions of standing and subject matter jurisdiction generally. The unusual dimensions of jurisdictional procedure have largely escaped notice. This Essay interrogates the history and context of jurisdictional procedure, offers an explanation for its invisibility, and identifies the consequences of that neglect

Compensatory Mitigation and Public Lands

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages America’s public lands for a multiplicity of uses and values. This effort requires difficult tradeoffs, because allowing one use, like oil drilling, will displace others, like recreation or wildlife habitat. Compensatory mitigation—the practice of requiring land users to offset their environmental harms—provides an important mechanism for addressing use conflicts, by enabling intensive development in designated areas, while conserving the ecological integrity of public lands as a whole. Despite its potential to balance competing interests in public lands, compensatory mitigation has come under fire. Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke described compensatory mitigation as “un-American” and “extortion,” and under his leadership, the BLM disclaimed authority to require it, never mind that the agency had done so for decades. The policy has persisted under the leadership of Secretary David Bernhardt. This Article examines the history of public land law, the development of environmental mitigation policies across the federal government, and three interlocking provisions of Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976—the Multiple Use Mandate, the Land Use Planning Mandate, and the Anti-Degradation Mandate—to reveal that the BLM has ample authority to require compensatory mitigation. It then assesses the circumstances in which resource users can appropriately be required to offset the impacts of their uses

The Invisibility of Jurisdictional Procedure and Its Consequences

Modern standing doctrine has been the subject of substantial scholarly inquiry. Critics charge that it allows judges to resolve cases based on their own ideologies, favoring corporations over individuals and those who harm over those harmed. The doctrine likewise disserves social justice, preventing adjudication of indisputably meritorious claims. Yet the focus on the substance of standing doctrine has obscured an equally significant impediment to justice created by the procedures that judges use to adjudicate questions of standing and subject matter jurisdiction generally. The unusual dimensions of jurisdictional procedure have largely escaped notice. This Essay interrogates the history and context of jurisdictional procedure, offers an explanation for its invisibility, and identifies the consequences of that neglect