U.S. Supreme Court,
Civil Litigation,
Government,
Environmental & Energy,
Constitutional Law,
Appellate Practice
Aug. 9, 2017
Efforts seek to rein in Chevron deference
Davina Pujari
Partner
WilmerHale LLP
Phone: (628) 235-1136
Email: davina.pujari@wilmerhale.com
Davina co-chairs the firm's Environment and Natural Resources Group and leads the Environmental Crimes and Investigations practice. She has more than 25 years of experience as a trial attorney in environmental and criminal law matters in both state and federal court.
Vaneeta Chintamaneni
Associate
Hanson Bridgett LLP
Email: VChintamaneni@hansonbridgett.com
Vaneeta is in the firm's Environmental & Natural Resources group. She provides guidance and support to corporations, individuals, and public agencies in a broad range of litigation and counseling. Vaneeta has experience with a variety of state and federal environmental statutes, including the CAA, the CWA, CERCLA, RCRA, CEQA, the Coastal Act, the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act, and Proposition 65.
In Murray Energy Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, a federal district court had decided that the EPA failed to conduct continuous evaluations of the effect of the Clean Air Act (CAA) on employment. 861 F.3d 529 (4th Cir. 2017). In June, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed that decision, illustrating a judicial unwillingness to interfere with agency interpretation and administration of complex processes. ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In