How will President Obama's judicial appointees affect the federal courts?
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].
How will President Obama's judicial appointees affect the federal courts? Earlier this week, the Federalist Society hosted a teleforum conference call to discuss that subject. Brett Shumate of Wiley Rein addressed the impact of the president's appointments on the D.C. Circuit, and I addressed the same question as applied to the Ninth Circuit, with particular reference to the latter court's environmental law jurisprudence.
The president has appointed seven new judges to the Ninth Circuit. Interestingly, three of them come from the same California appellate law firm, Munger Tolles & Olson. The remainder have the typical background of DOJ and lower court experience. Although all of the appointments could fairly be described as liberal in their basic outlook, they appear to lack much of the "green" taint of prior Democratic appointees to the Ninth Circuit. Instead, the new appointees appear to prefer to defer consistently to federal agency decision-making, even as against environmentalist challenges to an arguably "anti-green" result.
For example, Judge Nguyen (a recent Obama appointee) deferred to the agency in Alaska Wilderness League v. Jewell to uphold an oil spill prevention plan, over a strong dissent from Carter appointee Dorothy Nelson. Similarly, in Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission v. EPA, Judge Owens joined the panel decision affirming a Clean Water Act permit allowing oil and gas-related discharges into the Beaufort Sea). And even when the government is not directly involved, the president’s appointees have been loath to expand the reach of environmental laws: in Center for Community Action v. BNSF Railway, Judge Murguia (another Obama appointee) wrote the panel opinion holding that railroad diesel emissions do not qualify as regulable solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Remarkably and happily, the president's appointees occasionally vote in a decidedly pro-property rights manner. For example, in Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, Judge Watford dissented from the panel majority's decision upholding the government's decision not to renew a use permit for a long-standing shellfish operation located on federal land. Also, in Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, Judge Murguia dissented from the panel majority's decision upholding against a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge a California greenhouse gas regulatory program.
But this is not to say that the president's appointees are indifferent to the environment. For example, Judge Hurwitz wrote the controversial en banc opinion in Organized Village of Kake v. Department of Agriculture, overturning the Bush Administration's relaxation of the "roadless rule" for the Tongass National Forest. That opinion elicited a vigorous dissent from Judge Milan Smith, joined by several other GOP appointees. Also, Judge Hurwitz specially concurred in Ecological Rights Foundation v. PGE to note that utility poles may, in some circumstances, be regulable "point sources" under the Clean Water Act.
The main take-away from the podcast discussion, in my view, is that president's appointments will liberalize the jurisprudence of the D.C. and Ninth Circuits, with more impact being observed in the D.C. Circuit because of its relatively smaller size and relatively more conservative baseline.
Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Damien Schiff is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. He leads its environmental practice group, a unique initiative that draws broadly from PLF’s expertise and success in property rights and separation of powers litigation. Over the years, Damien has represented hundreds of landowners and property rights advocates to defend their liberties against heavy-handed and unwarranted environmental and land-use regulation. His litigation experience includes Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a groundbreaking decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of landowners to challenge Clean Water Act compliance orders issued by EPA, and Contoski v. Norton, PLF’s successful effort to force the federal government to make good on its promise to delist the bald eagle from the Endangered Species Act.
Besides litigation, Damien has written academic articles on a variety of subjects, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, greenhouse gas torts, the duty to rescue, and international water law. He has appeared on a variety of television and radio programs and has been quoted in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Harper’s Magazine, and The Economist, among other publications.
He obtained his law degree magna cum laude from the University of San Diego School of Law, and his undergraduate degree magna cum laude from Georgetown University. While at USD, he was a research assistant for Professor Bernard Siegan, a leading constitutional theorist and advocate for property rights and economic liberty. Immediately prior to joining PLF, Damien clerked for Judge (and former PLF attorney) Victor Wolski of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Damien credits the mentoring and examples of Professor Siegan and Judge Wolski for his decision to pursue a career in liberty-based public interest litigation.
Damien lives in Sacramento with his wife, two young sons, four chickens, and a cat named Princess. In his off hours he enjoys stamp collecting, Gregorian chant, and martinis—preferably at the same time.