Environmental law

Subscribe to Environmental law via RSS

On Wednesday, December 2, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the biggest takings case of the year, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). This is the case in which the Court is considering the theory of “judicial takings” and whether state courts are bound by the Fifth Amendment when they consider state property law. 

The case has been pitched as a contest between littoral property owners’ rights to have beach-front property (as opposed to beach-view property), and a state judiciary’s ability to adopt and shape a state’s common law.

The merits briefs, the 21 amicus briefs, and the decisions of the Florida state courts are available on our resource page. Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the case, supporting the property owners, available here.

The Court is considering…

Continue Reading Oral Arguments In Judicial Takings Case: Are State Courts Bound By The Takings Clause?

The Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro discusses Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), the case being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

We will post a preview of the arguments, but in the meantime, check out our resource page here (includes merits and amici briefs, and the decisions of the courts below).Continue Reading Cato Institute Podcast On Stop The Beach Renourishment (Judicial Takings) Case

Another very interesting conference call today, focusing on theupcoming arguments in the Stop the Beach Renourishment case, the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Aspen Creek, and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to review Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon. Here arethe links to some of the cases and other topics discussed duringtoday’s call, and other items of interest which we didn’t have time for:

  • A resource page for the Stop the Beach Renourishment case – merits and amici briefs, media links, and commentary.
  • Our summary of the New York court’s decision in Aspen Creek Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Brookhaven, 12 N.Y.3d 735 (N.Y. 2009), cert. denied, No. 08-1444 (U.S. Oct 5, 2009).
  • More about the “bizarre condemnation,” Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon, No. A-2963-07 (per curiam). See also this post on the case from the New Jersey Condemnation Law blog.

…
Continue Reading Links From ABA Condemnation Committee Conference Call (11/18/2009)

The judiciary web site has posted the recording of the November 10, 2009 Intermediate Court of Appeals oral arguments in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (HAWICA) here (caution, it is a massive 88 MB mp3 file).

The issue in the case is whether the state, or littoral landowners, are entitled toownership of certain accreted lands. In “Act 73,” (codifed here and here)the legislature declared that shoreline land naturally accreted belongsto the State of Hawaii and is public property. More about thearguments, including the briefs, here. Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners, available here.Continue Reading Beachfront Taking Case (HAWICA) Oral Argument Recording

The property owners have filed their Reply Brief in Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), the case about “judicial takings” and the rights of littoral owners to accretion.

Oral arguments in the Supreme Court are set for December 2, 2009.

More about the case on our resource page.

Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the Petitioners, available here.Continue Reading Petitioner’s Reply Brief In SCOTUS Beachfront Takings Case

The Hawaii Supreme Court and Intermediate Court of Appeals will be hearing two appeals of note:

  • Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 9:00 a.m. – Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (HAWICA). The issue is whether the state, or littoral landowners, are entitled toownership of certain accreted lands. In “Act 73,” (codifed here and here) the legislature declared that shoreline land naturally accreted belongs to the State of Hawaii and is public property. More about the arguments, including the briefs, here. Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners.
  • Thursday, December 17, 2009, 9:00 a.m. – Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28602 (HAWSCT). The Supreme Court is reviewing the ICA’s conclusion that unless the project changes, a supplementalEIS is not required under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw.Rev. Stat. ch. 343. The application for writ

…
Continue Reading Upcoming Oral Arguments Of Interest

In an order issued yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the SG’s motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument in Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). The federal government’s amicus brief is available here.

In Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.,998So.2d 1102 (Fla. Sep. 29, 2008), the Florida Supreme Court heldthat a state statute which prohibits “beach renourishment” without apermit did not effect a taking of littoral (beachfront) property, eventhough it altered the long-standing rights of the owners to accretionon their land and direct access to the ocean. The U.S. Supreme Court isconsidering whether the Florida court’s reversal of more than 100 yearsof Florida law was a judicial taking, and whether the Florida court’sdecision violated due process.

We filed an amicus brief in the case…

Continue Reading Solicitor General To Get Face Time In Judicial Takings Case

On Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 9:00 a.m., the Hawaii Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, the case in which the IntermediateCourt of Appeals held that unless the project changes, a supplementalEIS is not required under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw.Rev. Stat. ch. 343. The application for writ of certiorari asked the court to review this Question Presented:

Under HRS Chapter 343 an its enabling rules, is a supplemental environmental review required when there are significant changes to a project’s circumstances, such as increased environmental and community impacts, or are supplemental reviews limited solely to changes in project design?

The application for writ of certiorari and opposing and amici briefs in the case thus far are posted here. 

The ICA’s opinion is reported at 120 Haw.457, 209 P.3d 1271 (Haw. Ct. App. 2008), and…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Oral Aguments Scheduled In Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS Case: Is A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Enough To Trigger Supplemental EIS?

Today, the Hawaii Supreme Court agreed to review Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, 120 Haw. 457, 209 P.3d 1271 (Haw. Ct. App. 2008), in which the Intermediate Court of Appeals held that unless the project changes, a supplemental EIS is not required under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 343.

Alink to the ICA’s decision and the opinion of the dissenting judge isposted here. The briefs filed in the ICA are posted here.

The cert application, the brief in opposition, and the amici briefs on the application are here:

…
Continue Reading HAWSCT To Review Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS Case: Is A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Enough To Trigger Supplemental EIS?

Our live blog of the Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments in County of Hawaii v. Ala Loop Homeowners, No. 27707 (cert. granted Sep. 2, 2009). 

The mp3 recording of the argument is posted here.

More details on the case below the window.

<p>&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href=&amp;amp;quot;http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;task=viewaltcast&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;altcast_code=7c50a56fae&amp;amp;quot; &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;HAWSCT Ala Loop arguments 10-13-2009&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;</p>

The court is considering whether Haw. Rev. Stat. §  205-1 et seq.,gives rise to a private right of action. The core issue in the appealis whether Hawaii’s statewide zoning laws are “laws relating toenvironmental quality” which may be privately enforced, or whether theyare classic Euclidean zoning laws which can’t. The Hawaii Constitution (art. XI, § 9)provides that “any person may enforce” the “right to a clean andhealthful environment, as defined by law relating to environmentalquality, including control of pollution and conservation, protectionand enhancement of natural resources.”

Thecase involves a “new century charter school” located…

Continue Reading Live Blog Of HAWSCT Oral Arguments: Are State Zoning Laws “Environmental” Statutes?