When administrations change, so does policy.  That may result in an agency changing its mind.  On the federal level, that change — particularly a change in a factual finding — will be subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Ninth Circuit recently considered such a change in position over whether the Tongass National Forest in Alaska ought to be exempt from the “Roadless Rule,” and its “roadless values” left to protection under the Tongass’s individual forest plan.  Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, No. 11-35517 (9th Cir. July 29, 2015)(en banc).  This was a dispute that has been going on since the transition from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration.  Perhaps that alone is a lesson.  More significantly, the majority suggests that outgoing administrations can insulate their policy choices to some extent by couching them as factual findings.  Factual findings appear to require more of a basis to undo.  That may have importance as we come to another transition.

I address these issues in my September column in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly.  Read When an Agency Changes Its Mind, 38 Pa. L. Weekly 856 (Sept. 15, 2015), by clicking here.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David Mandelbaum David Mandelbaum

David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and…

David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and Oil and Gas Law in rotation at the Temple University Beasley School of Law as well as an environmental litigation course at Suffolk (Boston) Law School.

Since United States v. Atlas Minerals, the first multi-generator Superfund contribution case to go to trial in 1993, Mr. Mandelbaum has been engaged in matters involving allocation of costs among responsible parties, especially under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).  He has tried large cases and resolved others as lead counsel.  He has written, spoken, and taught extensively on the subject.  More recently he also has been engaged to assist lead counsel from this firm and others:

  • to develop cost allocation methodologies;
  • to craft expert testimony in support of a favored methodology (given a definition of “fairness,” why one methodology better tracks it than another);
  • to develop efficient case management approaches; and to assist private allocation as part of the neutral team.

Concentrations

  • Air, water and waste regulation
  • Superfund and contamination
  • Climate change
  • Oil and gas development
  • Water rights