Ellen M. Gilmer, E&E
News reporter Greenwire: Tuesday, September 25, 2018
The slowdown
and potential derailment of Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court
has immediate implications for Endangered Species Act litigation on the court's
calendar.
On Monday
morning, the high court will open its new term with arguments over habitat
protections for the dusky gopher frog, an endangered amphibian in the South.
It's
unlikely Kavanaugh will be there.
The nominee
appeared to be cruising toward Senate confirmation two weeks ago before sexual
assault allegations surfaced. Now Kavanaugh and his first accuser, Christine
Blasey Ford, are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on
Thursday.
Republicans
have blazoned confidence they'll ultimately confirm Kavanaugh to the bench, but
the vote count remains uncertain. And even with enough support, it would be
nearly impossible to have him seated in time for Monday's Supreme Court
arguments.
A
fastest-case scenario would likely look like this: The panel could act on the
nominee immediately after Thursday's hearing. After moving the nomination out
of committee, lawmakers are required by chamber rules to invoke cloture and
allow for 30 hours of post-cloture debate before a final vote.
The Senate
would have to stay in session through the weekend for a full Senate vote on
Kavanaugh to occur before Tuesday.
That means
the ESA case and the rest of next week's arguments — including disputes over
property rights and executive power — will likely be heard by an eight-justice
court.
A split
vote?
Environmental
lawyers are trying to game out what the timeline means for the dusky gopher
frog.
The ESA case
pits timber company Weyerhaeuser Co. against the Fish and Wildlife Service,
which in 2012 designated a large swath of private land in Louisiana as critical
habitat for the animal — even though the 100 or so frogs in existence live in
Mississippi.
Weyerhaeuser
and property rights advocates say FWS's designation went too far. The Trump
administration is defending the Obama-era designation.
Many
environmentalists thought Kavanaugh would look askance at the habitat
protection for the frog. They point to his record of skepticism in ESA cases he
fielded as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
"From a
wildlife point of view and from a public interest point of view, Kavanaugh
absolutely does not value natural services," Center for Biological
Diversity attorney Bill Snape said. "Never has, apparently never will.”
Without
Kavanaugh, FWS and environmental allies might have better odds.
If an
eight-justice court splits 4-4 on the case, it affirms the lower-court decision
at issue. In the ESA case, however, an ideological split between the
conservative and liberal wings of the court is not guaranteed.
If a split
on a final vote did occur, the justices would rely on the 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals decision that upheld FWS's critical habitat designation.
"A 4-4
tie would mean that the 5th Circuit decision prevails," said Snape, who
added it's also possible FWS will secure a more clear-cut win by winning over
conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.
The dusky gopher
frog's fate may not be that simple.
Supreme
Court procedure could yield a variety of outcomes, including the eventual
participation of Kavanaugh or some other new justice.
Justices
traditionally do not participate in cases argued before they joined the court,
but there's no rule against it
"I
believe [Justice Neil] Gorsuch did not participate in cases argued before he
was on the bench, but his vote was not needed to decide the outcome of
them," said Bob Percival, head of the environmental law program at the
University of Maryland.
Harvard Law
School professor Richard Lazarus said the justices make rare exceptions to
their standard practice of voting only in cases whose arguments they attended.
The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for example, voted in some cases
after listening to recordings of arguments he missed due to cancer.
"But,
unlike Kavanaugh, Rehnquist was a sitting justice at the time of
argument," Lazarus said in an email. "Kavanaugh would not be."
The more
likely path forward for the frog case, if the justices split 4-4, is for the
court to set a case for reargument, he added.
Reargument
means all the parties return to the courthouse for a do-over.
Mayer Brown
attorney Timothy Bishop noted numerous instances in which the court has
scheduled reargument to break a deadlocked vote.
After
Rehnquist's death in 2005, the court scheduled reargument in cases involving
freedom of speech, the death penalty and police searches.
"Presumably,
the Court restored these cases to the calendar because an equally divided vote
had resulted," Bishop, who was joined by some co-authors, wrote in a
Supreme Court practice book.
If the eight
current justices split on the dusky gopher frog case, Lazarus said the case would
"very likely" take a similar path.
Reporter
George Cahlink contributed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You only need to enter your comment once! Comments will appear once they have been moderated. This is so as to stop the would-be comedian who has been spamming the comments here with inane and often offensive remarks. You know who you are!