Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
NR Policy Exam 2
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| 3 criteria to demonstrate standing | Injury in fact, redressability, causation |
| An effort to reduce the take of endangered species | minimization |
| offset take of endangered species | mitigation |
| 3 ways a case can be heard by supreme court | Original jurisdiction, appeal from circuit court, appeal from state supreme court |
| One SCOTUS case that shaped WOTUS definition | Sackett v EPA |
| What is issued by SCOTUS when they will hear a case | Writ of certiorari |
| What is a concurring opinion | Judges agree but for a different reason |
| Typical court system | District courts --> circuit courts (appellate courts) --> Supreme Court |
| Majority Opinion | 5 justices jointly issue an opinion |
| Dissenting Opinions | Minority justices say why they disagree |
| Per Curiam | Delivered by the court as a whole with no individual authorship |
| Weyerhaeuser v USFWS | Delt with the issue of critical habitat. SCOTUS sided with Weyerhaeuser becuase it was not current habitat (used dictionary) |
| Sierra Club v Morton (disney) | Sierra club could not demonstrate standing because the injury was too broad. Not specific to a person or peoples. |
| What does loosening standing requirements do? | Opens the courts making them more important |
| What does tightening standing requirements do? | It makes it harder to use the judiciary system - Can take away this unconventional policymaking pathway. |
| Decentralized oversight in respect to golden era | Congress allowed for suits against agencies if not enforcing statutes. People can now hold agencies accountable. |
| What is "Big Green" | Groups of people or organizations that try to force agencies to enforce laws through decentralized oversight. |
| Sackett v EPA | Delt with section 401(a) of CWA and sided with the Sackett's, removing Kennedy's significant nexus test and replacing it with continuous connection test. |
| Judicial Activism | Judges pushing boundary of the law for political purposes |
| What was different about judicial activism in the Urgenda case v Juliana case | The Dutch judges sided with urgenda while the US judges said that juliana did not show standing and the court would not be able to enact complex policy change. (no redressability) |
| Mass. v EPA | Questioned the EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions, and EPA's authority to limit GHG emissions for other reasons. SCOTUS said yes to Q1. andno to Q2 Led to 2009 Endangerment finding |
| Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA | Does epa have the right to regulate stationary GHG sources? SCOTUS decided no, limiting EPA v Mass finding |
| Loper Bright v Raimondo | Repealed the Chevron Defense |
| West VA v EPA | Decided EPA cannot cap emissions on power plants. -> Major Question Doctrine = EPA must have clear congressional authority to regulate GHG's |
| Pros to adversarial legalism | - Minority stakeholders can be heard - Check/balance against unconventional pathways - Move policy when other pathways are deadlocked - Meant to be fair and open |
| Cons to adversarial legalism | - High cost - Uncertainty + unpredictability - Potential inequality - Inhibits cooperation - Judges are not elected (they aren't accountable to population) |
| How is collabrative policy making a consequence of the timber wars | People wanted to reduce litigation and conflict, they wanted to develop policy that reflected local conditions, and they wanted to bring society back into policymaking. |
| Policymaking paradigm that views management as a technical task to be addressed with subject matter expertise | Scientific utilitarianism |
| HCP's | Habitat conservation plans made with private landowners under section 10 of the ESA. |
| ITP | Section 9 of ESA limits take of endangered species. Incidental take permits allow some take if there is minimization, mitigation, and documentation addressed. |
| Properties of HCP's | Most lack independent science. applies to species that are listed, or candidates for listing. Long term (30, 50, or 100yrs). Initiated by landowners. |
| Clintons No Surprise Rule | Once issued an ITP, there can be no change in light of new knowledge. This makes it more appealing to landowners. |
| Safe Harbor Rule | Creating habitat protects from future regulation |
| Babbitt v Sweet Homes | Should take apply to private lands? SCOTUS said yes (creating a penalty default) |
| Grassroots collaborative conservation | - Starts with local stakeholders - Uses negotiation and collaborative policymaking |
| How can top down management fail? | - Flawed information / no local input (atlantic cod fishery) - Govt can prioritize short-term economic factors - Protectionism over conservation |
| What can a collapse in top down management lead to? | Tragedy of the commons |
| Consequences to unconventional policymaking | Varying policymaking over time. Little scientific or local input. EX: WOTUS Cases |
| Bayview Homes v US | Broadened CWA by applying regulation to adjacent wetlands |
| SWANCC v US | Rules that isolated wetlands cannot be regulated soley on the Migratory Bird Rule |
| Rapanos v US | Restricted CWA slightly by applying Kennedy's Significant Nexus Rule |
| Stakeholder | Any individual or group who may effect, be effected by, or perceive themselves to be effected by a policy. |
| Collabrative policy tries to use the best part of what two systems? | Scientific utilitarianism and decentralized community approach. |
| Plum Creek | Used HCP to continue operations in area with spotted owl. |
| Sweet Homes v Babbitt | Take includes habitat |
| How did quincey library group use multiple unconventional pathways. | They used grass roots collabrative policymaking to come up with a propoasl which was initially rejected. The the clinton administration used executive authority to direct USFS to adopt the proposal. It was eventually passed as a rider=Legeslative pathway |
Created by:
jackscarbs