诉前撤销:一种有效、公平和无害环境的补救办法

S. Gillespie
{"title":"诉前撤销:一种有效、公平和无害环境的补救办法","authors":"S. Gillespie","doi":"10.58948/0738-6206.1857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Federal agencies are increasingly requesting voluntary remands of challenged rules, thereby circumventing judicial review, and avoiding ever having to defend the merits of those rules. Courts routinely grant these extraordinary requests, often under the guise of saving judicial resources and giving agencies a second chance to reconsider. But voluntary remands come at a steep cost, particularly in the arena of environmental litigation. There, voluntary remands not only deprive litigants of their day in court, but can also subject them (and the broader public) to unlawful and inadequate rules that are causing serious environmental harm. Courts have long guarded against the inequitable consequences of voluntary remands by simultaneously vacating the challenged rules, even prior to a conclusive determination on the merits. That remedy—also known as pre-merits vacatur—falls well within the court’s broad equitable authority. It has, however, come under assault in recent years, particularly from industry groups who rarely profit from the court’s equitable discretion. So too, the Biden Administration has questioned the court’s ability to vacate Trumpera environmental regulations on voluntary remand, thereby prolonging those rules’ adverse environmental impacts. Some legal commentators have assumed, with little or no analysis, that court’s lack the authority to order pre-merits vacatur. This article sets the record straight and provides a complete defense of the court’s authority to order pre-merits vacatur as a condition of voluntary remand. The article also refutes misplaced * Stuart Gillespie is a senior attorney with Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental law firm. The opinions expressed in this article are his alone.","PeriodicalId":136205,"journal":{"name":"Pace Environmental Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pre-Merits Vacatur: An Efficient, Equitable, and Environmentally Sound Remedy\",\"authors\":\"S. Gillespie\",\"doi\":\"10.58948/0738-6206.1857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Federal agencies are increasingly requesting voluntary remands of challenged rules, thereby circumventing judicial review, and avoiding ever having to defend the merits of those rules. Courts routinely grant these extraordinary requests, often under the guise of saving judicial resources and giving agencies a second chance to reconsider. But voluntary remands come at a steep cost, particularly in the arena of environmental litigation. There, voluntary remands not only deprive litigants of their day in court, but can also subject them (and the broader public) to unlawful and inadequate rules that are causing serious environmental harm. Courts have long guarded against the inequitable consequences of voluntary remands by simultaneously vacating the challenged rules, even prior to a conclusive determination on the merits. That remedy—also known as pre-merits vacatur—falls well within the court’s broad equitable authority. It has, however, come under assault in recent years, particularly from industry groups who rarely profit from the court’s equitable discretion. So too, the Biden Administration has questioned the court’s ability to vacate Trumpera environmental regulations on voluntary remand, thereby prolonging those rules’ adverse environmental impacts. Some legal commentators have assumed, with little or no analysis, that court’s lack the authority to order pre-merits vacatur. This article sets the record straight and provides a complete defense of the court’s authority to order pre-merits vacatur as a condition of voluntary remand. The article also refutes misplaced * Stuart Gillespie is a senior attorney with Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental law firm. The opinions expressed in this article are his alone.\",\"PeriodicalId\":136205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pace Environmental Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pace Environmental Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.58948/0738-6206.1857\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pace Environmental Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58948/0738-6206.1857","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

联邦机构越来越多地要求对受到质疑的规则进行自愿发回,从而规避司法审查,并避免为这些规则的是非曲直辩护。法院通常会以节省司法资源和给机构第二次重新考虑的机会为幌子,批准这些非常要求。但自愿还押代价高昂,尤其是在环境诉讼领域。在那里,自愿还押不仅剥夺了诉讼当事人在法庭上的时间,而且还可能使他们(以及更广泛的公众)受到非法和不充分的规则的约束,这些规则正在造成严重的环境危害。法院长期以来一直通过同时撤销受到质疑的规则来防止自愿还押的不公平后果,甚至在对是非事实作出结论性决定之前。这一补救措施——也被称为案情前撤销——完全属于法院广泛的公平权力范围。然而,近年来该法院受到了攻击,尤其是来自很少从该法院公平裁量权中获利的行业团体。同样,拜登政府也质疑法院是否有能力撤销特朗普的环境法规,从而延长这些规则对环境的不利影响。一些法律评论人士在很少或根本没有分析的情况下认为,法院缺乏命令案情提前撤销的权力。这篇文章澄清了事实,并为法院有权下令将审前判决撤销作为自愿还押的条件提供了完整的辩护。斯图尔特·吉莱斯皮(Stuart Gillespie)是非营利环境律师事务所“地球正义”(Earthjustice)的高级律师。本文仅代表他个人观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pre-Merits Vacatur: An Efficient, Equitable, and Environmentally Sound Remedy
Federal agencies are increasingly requesting voluntary remands of challenged rules, thereby circumventing judicial review, and avoiding ever having to defend the merits of those rules. Courts routinely grant these extraordinary requests, often under the guise of saving judicial resources and giving agencies a second chance to reconsider. But voluntary remands come at a steep cost, particularly in the arena of environmental litigation. There, voluntary remands not only deprive litigants of their day in court, but can also subject them (and the broader public) to unlawful and inadequate rules that are causing serious environmental harm. Courts have long guarded against the inequitable consequences of voluntary remands by simultaneously vacating the challenged rules, even prior to a conclusive determination on the merits. That remedy—also known as pre-merits vacatur—falls well within the court’s broad equitable authority. It has, however, come under assault in recent years, particularly from industry groups who rarely profit from the court’s equitable discretion. So too, the Biden Administration has questioned the court’s ability to vacate Trumpera environmental regulations on voluntary remand, thereby prolonging those rules’ adverse environmental impacts. Some legal commentators have assumed, with little or no analysis, that court’s lack the authority to order pre-merits vacatur. This article sets the record straight and provides a complete defense of the court’s authority to order pre-merits vacatur as a condition of voluntary remand. The article also refutes misplaced * Stuart Gillespie is a senior attorney with Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental law firm. The opinions expressed in this article are his alone.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Green Future and the Golden Past: Issues and Approaches Regarding the Sustainability of Historical Structures and Sites Virtuous Cycles: The Interaction of Public and Private Environmental Governance The Need to Reconceptualize Wild Animals Post-COVID 19: Miscoordination of Wildlife Regulations in China’s Food Legal Order Racial Impact Assessment in Land Use Planning and Zoning Environmental Law for the 21st Century
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1