« December 2010 | Main | February 2011 »
Muneer Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations spoke with Tricia Perry about the recent ballot initiative in Oklahama, where voters approved a measure prohibiting state courts from considering international and Islamic ("Sharia") law. Listen as they discuss the potential impact of the law and pending legal challenges.
Listen to the full interview series here.
Urbanite friends, imagine for a moment that you're passionate about fishing. Some of your happiest times have been spent out on the river with your best buddies, peacefully awaiting a tug on the line and the subsequent chase. Year after year, you've appreciated this ritual, grateful for the outdoors and its offerings. Your kids look forward to Saturday afternoons out on the dock with you, too. And then one day you find out that the state you live in has issued a permit to an energy company to dump millions of gallons of oil field wastewater into the river, your river. What would you do?
You could try petitioning your state or, if that failed, going to court and suing the state for issuing a permit that jeopardizes your right to a clean, unpolluted water source. In a move that will probably have significant implications for environmental and water law in Michigan and possibly other states, a group of anglers and other environmental groups brought just this kind of case. They challenged the state's decision to allow Merit Energy to use a pipeline to cut across state land in order to dump contaminated water into the previously uncontaminated Au Sable River. The anglers brought suit under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) of 1970 which authorizes “any person” to file suit “for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources...from pollution, impairment, or destruction.”
Citizens and environmental groups historically have brought cases under environmental laws like MEPA to challenge polluters as well as state agencies that allow contamination of our waterways. In this case, however, the state challenged the anglers' right to sue under MEPA based on several recent cases that called into question whether and under what conditions citizens can go to court and whether they can hold the state responsible for allowing the pollution under the law. Also at issue was the definition of waterfront property rights and whether the state was within its rights to allow Merit Energy access to the Au Sable watershed. The case raised a number of concerns as it made its way through the courts, particularly after a state court of appeals ruled that the anglers and environmental groups couldn't sue the state under MEPA.
On December 29, 2010, the Supreme Court of the state of Michigan issued a 4-3 ruling. The court ruled in favor of the anglers, arguing that, as the law suggests, “any person” in Michigan has the right to sue in order to protect public environmental assets. The majority opinion also held that Merit Energy's request to pollute the Au Sable was “manifestly unreasonable.”
As the new year begins, ideological shifts on the Michigan Supreme Court seem to indicate that a rollback of civil and environmental rights may be on the way. For now, though, it is heartening to see the courts upholding the law and allowing access to justice and the enforcement of our critical clean water laws. Let's hope this is a new norm.
(Photo by Todd Baker.)
By Paula Z. Segal
In the 2011 term, the Supreme Court will consider closing all federal courthouse doors to those harmed by climate change.
Greenhouse gas emissions – especially emissions of carbon dioxide - are a danger to the environment because they lead to temperature changes in the atmosphere. Temperature changes in the atmosphere lead to warmer seas, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and eroding coastlines. Coal-burning power plants emit carbon dioxide in huge quantities.
Although it is the job of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate all emissions that threaten air quality, the EPA has not yet come up with regulations that actually require coal burning power plants to control how much greenhouse gas they release into the air.
Eight states, New York City and three land trusts sued the biggest coal companies in federal court in New York, asking the court to order the companies to limit how much carbon dioxide they release into the atmosphere. The coal companies they sued contribute 10% of all carbon dioxide emissions worldwide from human activity.
Each plaintiff argues that it has already experienced harm from temperature changes in the atmosphere. For example, California has lost a large portion of its mountain snowpack, a crucial water source for 34 million people. If temperature changes in the atmosphere continue on their current trajectory unabated, the next 100 years will bring an increase in heat-wave related illness and death, increased smog and its accompanying respiratory problems, damage to coastal homes and infrastructure, salt water in fresh water supplies, and more extreme weather, which is likely to result in property damage and erosion of irreplaceable ecosystems. The first people to be affected by these “natural” disasters are the least well protected – the poor, elderly, the people who live in communities with aging infrastructure and who lack the resources to provide for themselves when that infrastructure fails.
California and its partners in the case won: A federal appeals court in New York was convinced that emissions of carbon dioxide contribute to global warming and are already having an impact on sea levels enough to be considered a public nuisance – that is, interfering with public health in violation of federal law. The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court for an order limiting emissions.
But the coal companies were not pleased with the result and appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only hears a small number of cases every year, but decided to take the case, called Connecticut v. AEP. (The Supreme Court doesn’t have to take every case that is appealed; it gets to pick and choose.) The fact that the Supreme Court decided to hear this case in 2011 is a signal that the court wants to weigh in on whether people, cities, states and other entities harmed by pollution have a right to be heard by courts in the future. The Supreme Court may agree with the appeals court that decided the case for the injured states, New York City and the land trusts. But it may also overturn that decision, potentially slamming the door in the faces of others harmed by pollution and climate change who hope to have their day in court when injured by a public nuisance.
Paula Z. Segal is a third year law student at City University of New York Law School at Queens College. She is the Events Editor of the New York City Law Review and an active member of the NYC National Lawyers Guild Street Law Team. In the Fall of 2010, she interned with the Environmental Justice Unit at New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.
(Photo by davipt.)
