Toggle menu
Bradford C. Mank


Bradford C. Mank

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, James B. Helmer, Jr. Professor of Law


BA, Harvard University
JD, Yale University

Areas of Interest

  • Administrative Law
  • Environmental and Natural Resources Law
  • Property
Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor Mank teaches and writes in the areas of environmental law and administrative law.  A prolific scholar, he has authored many articles and book chapters on environmental justice, regulatory reform, standing, and statutory interpretation. He also has worked with the City of Cincinnati on a number of environmental ordinances and implementation matters, including climate change, environmental justice, recycling, and air pollution issues. 
He was named the James B. Helmer, Jr. Professor of Law in 2001 in recognition of his scholarly and teaching accomplishments. Professor Mank’s has also been honored with the 2004 Harold C. Schott Award and in 2001 with the Goldman Prize for Teaching Excellence. He was also awarded the Dean’s Award for Faculty Excellence in 2016.
Before joining the College of Law faculty in 1991, Professor Mank served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut.  He also was an associate  with the Hartford, Conn., law firm of Murtha, Cullina, Righter and Pinney, where his emphasis was environmental law. 
Professor Mank received his A.B. summa cum laude from Harvard University and his J.D. from Yale University where he served as the Editor of the Yale Law Journal.  After graduation, he clerked for Justice David M. Shea of the Connecticut Supreme Court.



  • Data Breaches, IdentityTheft and Article III Standing: Will the Supreme Court Resolve the Split in the Circuits?, 92 Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2016)
  • Does a House of Congress Have Standing Over Appropriations?: The House of Representatives Challenges the Affordable Care Act, 19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (forthcoming 2016-2017)
  • Article III Standing for Private Plaintiffs Challenging Greenhouse Gas Regulations, 53 San Diego L. Rev. (forthcoming 2016)
  • Prudential Standing Doctrine Abolished or Waiting for a Comeback?: Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 18 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 213-263(Fall 2015)
  • Essay, Standing to View Other People’s Land: The D.C. Circuit’s Divided Decision in Sierra Club v. Jewell, 40 Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 305 (2015) (published 7/2015)
  • Does United States v. Windsor (the DOMA case) Open the Door to Congressional Standing Rights?, 76 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 1-62 (2014) (published 7/2015)
  • No Article III Standing for Private Plaintiffs Challenging State Greenhouse Gas Regulations: The Ninth Circuit’s Decision in Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, 63 American University Law Review 1525-85 (2014) (published 7/2014)
  • Clapper v. Amnesty International: Two or Three Competing Philosophies of Standing Law?, 81 Tennessee Law Review 211-275 (2014)(published 6/2014)
  • Is Prudential Standing Jurisdictional?, 64 Case Western Reserve Law Review 413-454 (2013; actually published 5/2014)
  • Standing for Private Parties in Global Warming Cases: Traceable Standing Causation Does Not Require Proximate Causation, 2012MICH. ST. L. REV. 869-932(published 6/2013).
  • Judge Posner’s “Practical” Theory of Standing, 50Houston Law Review 71-130 (2012).
  • Reading the Standing Tea Leaves in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 46 University of Richmond Law Review 543-602(2012).
  • Informational Standing After Summers, 39 Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 1-54(2011)
  • Essay, Standing in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms: Using Economic Injury as a Basis for Standing When Environmental Harm is Difficult to Prove, 115 Penn State Law Review 307-339 (2010 [published in 2011])
  • Revisiting the Lyons Den: Summers v. Earth Island Institute’s Misuse of Lyons’ “Realistic Threat” of Harm Standing Test, 42 Arizona State Law Journal 837-899 (2010)
  • Summers v. Earth Island Institute: Its Implications for Future Standing Decisions, 40 Envtl. L. Rep. 10958-73 (Oct. 2010) (solicited article based in part on February 26, 2010 Georgetown Law School Symposium Presentation)
  • Summers v. Earth Island Institute Rejects Probabilistic Standing, But a “Realistic Threat” of Harm is a Better Standing Test, 40 Environmental Law 89-139 (2010) (published by Lewis & Clark Law School, ranked No. 2 in environmental law by U.S. News & World Report in 2009).
  • The Supreme Court’s New Public-Private Distinction Under the Dormant Commerce Clause: Avoiding the Traditional Versus Nontraditional Classification Trap, 37 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 1-64 (Fall 2009).
  • Standing and Statistical Persons: A Risk-Based Approach to Standing, 36 Ecology Law Quarterly 665-754 (published at California-Berkeley) (2009)(featured discussion in Dawn Reeves, Legal Scholar Advocates Statistical Risk-Based Test For Lawsuit Standing, Risk Policy Report, Inside, Dec. 9. 2009, (subscription required)).
  • Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Columbia J. Envtl. L. 1-97 (2009) (abridged version published by American Bar Association, 34:3 Administrative & Regulatory Law News 5-6, 15 (Spring 2009)).
  • Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 William & Mary L. Rev. 1701-1787 (2008) (cited in Connecticut v. American Electric Power, footnote 15 (2d Cir. 2009); N.C. ex rel. Cooper v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 593 F. Supp. 2d 812 (W.D.N.C. 2009)).
  • Can Plaintiffs Use Multinational Environmental Treaties as Customary International Law to Sue Under the Alien Tort Statute?, 2007 Utah L. Rev. 1085-1170 (2007)
  • Are Public Facilities Different From Private Ones? : Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause60 SMU Law Rev. 157-207 (2007) (described as an “excellent treatment” of the United Haulers case, Kenneth L. Karst, “From Carbone to United Haulers: The Advocates’ Tales,” 2007 Supreme Court Review 237, 240 n.12).
  • After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78,University of Colorado Law Review 375-463 (2007)
  • Implementing Rapanos-Will Justice Kennedy’s Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators and Developers?, 40 Indiana Law Rev. 291-349 (2007)
  • Title VI and the Warren County Protests, 1 Golden Gate Environmental Law Review 73-89 (2007) (solicited article featured in symposium celebrating the 25th Anniversary of Warren County, North Carolina Environmental Justice Protests Opposing Landfill in Minority Area)
  • Prudential Standing and the Dormant Commerce Clause: Why the “Zone of Interests” Test Should Not Apply to Constitutional Cases, 48 Arizona Law Review 23-65 (Spring 2006)
  • A Scrivener’s Error or Greater Protection of the Public: Does the EPA Have the Authority to Delist “Low-Risk” Sources of Carcinogens From Section 112's Maximum Available Control Technology Requirements?, 24 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 75-124 (Fall 2005)
  • Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Environmental Law 1-84 (2005) (published by Lewis & Clark Law School, ranked No. 1 in environmental law by U.S. News & World Report in 2005)
  • Can Administrative Regulations Interpret Rights Enforceable Under Section1983?: Why Chevron Deference Survives Sandoval and Gonzaga, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 843-896 (2005) (excerpted in Rechtschaffen et al. Environmental Justice (2d ed. 2009)
  • Are Anti-Retaliation Regulations in Title VI or Title IX Enforceable in a Private Right of Action: Does Sandoval or Sullivan Control This Question?, 35 Seton Hall L. Rev. 47 (2004)
  • Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species Under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brooklyn L. Rev. 923-1001 (2004)
  • The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act After SWANCC, 30 Ecology Law Quarterly 811-91 (2003) [University of California, Berkeley].
  • Suing Under § 1983: The Future After Gonzaga v. Doe, 39 Houston L. Rev. 1417-82 (2003).
  • Essay, Are Title VI’s Disparate Impact Regulations Valid?, 71 U. Cin. L. Rev. 517 (2002) (Faculty Symposium/Solicited).
  • Legal Context: Reading Statutes in Light of Prevailing Legal Precedent, 34 Arizona State Law Journal 815-70 (2002).
  • Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Georgia Law Review 723-95 (2002).
  • South Camden Citizens In Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: Will Section 1983 Save Title VI Disparate Impact Suits?, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 10454-10479 (Envtl. L. Institute) (April 2002).
  • Proving an Environmental Justice Case: Determining an Appropriate Comparison Population, 20 Virginia Envtl. L.J. 365-430 (2001).
  • (Co-author with Denis Binder et al) A Survey of Federal Agency Response to President Clinton’s Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 11133-11167 (Envtl. L. Institute) (Oct. 2001) (authored EPA portion of article)
  • Using Section 1983 to Enforce Title VI’s Section 602 Regulations, 49 Kansas L. Rev. 321-382 (2001).
  • The Draft Recipient Guidance and Draft Revised Investigation Guidance: Too Much Discretion for the EPA and a More Difficult Standard for Complainants?, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 11144-11174 (Envtl. L. Institute) (Dec. 2000).
  • Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA’s Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157-1198 (2000) (Symposium/Solicited).
  • Do State Brownfield Programs Violate Title VI?, 24 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 115-187 (2000).
  • Title VI and Environmental Justice: Making Recipients Justify Their Siting Decisions, 73 Tulane L. Rev. 787-843 (1999).
  • Is There a Private Cause of Action Under EPA’s Title VI Regulations?: The Need to Empower Environmental Justice Plaintiffs, 24 Colum. Envtl. L. Rev. 1-61 (1999).
  • The EPA’s Project XL and Other Regulatory Reform Initiatives: The Need for Legislative Authorization, 25 Ecology Law Quarterly 1-88 (1998) [University of California, Berkeley].
  • Textualism’s Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Kentucky L.J. 527-616 (1998).
  • American Mining Congress v. Army Department: Ignoring Chevron and the Clean Water Act’s Broad Purposes, 25 N. Ky. L. Rev. 51 (1997) [Solicited/Symposium].
  • Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better Than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231-92 (1996).
  • Protecting the Environment for Future Generations: A Proposal for a "Republican" Superagency, 5 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 444-516 (1996).
  • Environmental Justice and Discriminatory Siting: Risk-Based Representation and Equitable Compensation, 56 Ohio St. L.J. 329-425 (1995).
  • What Comes After Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263-345 (1994) (quoted with approval in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 2310951 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
  • Superfund Contractors and Agency Capture, 2 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 34 (1993).
  • Preventing Bhopal: "Dead Zones" and Toxic Death Risk Index Taxes, 53 Ohio St. L.J. 761 (1992).
  • The Two-Headed Dragon of Siting and Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste Dumps: Can Economic Incentives or Mediation Slay the Monster?, 19 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 239 (1991).
  • Out-of-State Trash: Solid Waste and the Commerce Clause, 38 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 25 (1990).



  • Standing and Related Doctrines” Chapter, in Environmental Decisionmaking (to be published by Edward Elgar in 2016; Robert Glicksman & Lee Paddock eds.) (1st draft 12/2014; 2nd draft 1/2016) (part of larger 11-volume series Encyclopedia of Environmental Law to be published by Edward Elgar Press in collaboration with the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law
  • Book Chapters on (1) Title VI and Environment Justice and (2) Executive Order 12,898 in Environmental Justice (Michael B. Gerrard & Sheila Foster eds.) (Second Edition American Bar Association 2008).
  • Book Chapter on Standing and Remedies, Chapter 6, Global Warming (Michael B. Gerrard ed.) (American Bar Association March 2007)
  • The Rights of Indigenous Peoples to a Healthy Environment and Use of National Resources Under International Human Rights Law, in 235-248 Effective Strategies for Protecting Human Rights: Economic sanctions, use of national courts and international fora and coercive power (David Barnhizer ed.) (Ashgate 2001).
  • Environmental Justice Litigation Chapter in Environmental Law Practice Guide (Michael B. Gerrard ed.) (Matthew Bender 1998).
  • Book Chapters on Public Participation (Chapter 31) and Other Remedial Issues (Chapter 25), in Brownfield’s Law and Practice (Michael B. Gerrard ed.) (Matthew Bender 1998).



  • David R. Boyd, The Right to a Healthy Environment, Revitalizing Canada’s Constitution (UBC Press, W. Wesley Pue general ed., 2012), Book Review with Chiddy Ukonne, 36 Human Rights Quarterly 258-66 (February 2014) (Johns Hopkins University Press)
  • David R. Boyd, The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights, and the Environment (W. Wesley Pue general ed., 2012), Book Review with Suzanne Smith, 35 Human Rights Quarterly 1021-42 (November 2013) (Johns Hopkins University Press)
  • Human Rights, Emergencies, and the Rule of Law, Book Review (with James W. (Jay) Jackson, Jr.), Climate Change and Displacement (Jane McAdam ed., Hart Publishing, 2010), 34 Human Rights Quarterly 267-85 (The Johns Hopkins University Press) (Feb. 2012)



  • Amicus Brief, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FEDERAL COURTS SCHOLARS AND SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, U.S. Supreme Court (April 4, 2016) (arguing that Texas has standing as a state to challenge certain immigration policies, but not addressing the merits of the case) (citing my article Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 William & Mary L. Rev.1701 (2008)),
  • Amicus Brief, BRIEF FOR PUBLIC LAW PROFESSORS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT, Spokeo, Inc. v. Thomas Robins, No. 13-1339, U.S. Supreme Court (Sept. 2015) (arguing Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm other than the violation of a private right conferred by a federal statute),
  • Amicus Brief, South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 274 F.3d 771, 773 (3rd Circuit 2001) (principal author of amicus brief on whether EPA’s Title VI regulations may be enforced through § 1983).



  • Administrative Law
  • Environmental Law I
  • Environmental Law II
  • International Environmental Law