College of Law

Courses

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

Awards

• 2004 Harold C. Schott Scholarship Award
• 2001 Goldman Prize for Excellence in Teaching

November 2011

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Revisiting the Lyons Den: Summers v. Earth Island Institute’s Misuse of Lyons’ “Realistic Threat” of Harm Standing Test, 42 Ariz. St. L.J. 837 (2010), in Brian Calabrese, Note, Fear-Based Standing: Cognizing an Injury-in-Fact, 68 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1445 (2011);
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Benjamin Ewing & Douglas A. Kysar, Prods and Pleas: Limited Government in an Era of Unlimited Harm, 121 Yale L.J. 350 (2011);
• Standing and Statistical Persons: A Risk-Based Approach to Standing, 36 Ecology L.Q. 665 (2009), in Brian Calabrese, Note, Fear-Based Standing: Cognizing an Injury-in-Fact, 68 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1445 (2011); and
• Summers v. Earth Island Institute Rejects Probabilistic Standing, but Laidlaw Still Leaves an Opening for Threatened Injuries, 40 Envtl. L. 89 (2010), in Brian Calabrese, Note, Fear-Based Standing: Cognizing an Injury-in-Fact, 68 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 1445 (2011).

October 2011

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

•  The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2011 Supp.);
• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2011 Supp.);
•  Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2011 Supp.);
• 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 (1999), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2011 Supp.); and
•  Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2011 Supp.).

Brad, a member of this year’s faculty appointments committee, attended the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) recruiting conference in Washington, D.C., on October 14 & 15.

September 2011

Brad’s article, Reading the Standing Tea Leaves in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, has been accepted for publication in the University of Richmond Law Review in 2012.

Brad presented the same article at the Second Annual Colloquium on Environmental Scholarship at Vermont Law School on September 23.

Two of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Environmental Justice and Title VI: Making Recipient Agencies Justify Their Siting Decisions, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 787 (1999), in Danfeng Soto-Vigil Koon, Cal. Gov't Code § 11135: A Challenge to Contemporary State-Funded Discrimination, 7 Stan. J.C.R. & C.L. 239 (2011); and

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Nima H. Mohebbi, John Graver Johnson's Intellectual Footprint on the Jurisprudence of the Sherman Act and the Commerce Clause, 13 U. Pa. J. Bus. L. 955 (2011).

Summer 2011

Brad’s article, 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. St. L. Rev. 307 (2010), is now in print.

In August, Brad presented a paper titled, “Standing in Connecticut vs. American Electric Power,” to the law faculty as part of the College’s Summer 2011 Faculty Workshop series.

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in Kellen S. Dwyer, Dormant Commerce Clause Review Of Public-Private Partnerships After United Haulers: A Competitive Bidding Solution, 18 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 203 (2011);

• Legal Context: Reading Statutes in Light of Prevailing Legal Precedent, 34 Ariz. St. L.J. 815 (2002), in Rachel E. Moore, Giving It Another Shot: A Reexamination of the "Second or Subsequent Conviction" Language of the Firearm Possession Sentencing Statute, 64 Vand. L. Rev. 1005 (2011);

• Reforming State Brownfield Programs Violate Title VI?, 24 Harv. Envtl L.Rev. 115 (2000), in James A. Kushner, Affordable Housing As Infrastructure In The Time Of Global Warming, 42/43 Urb. Law. 179 (2011);

• Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA’s Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000), in William H. Rodgers, Jr., Environmental Law (West, 2d ed. 2011 Supp.);

• 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 (Environmental Law Institute) (Apr. 2002), in James T. O'Reilly & Caroline Broun, RCRA and Superfund: A Practice Guide § 4.3 (3d ed. 2011 Supp.); 

• Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009), in Gregory Bradford, Note, Simplifying State Standing: The Role Of Sovereign Interests In Future Climate Litigation, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 1065 (2011);

• The Supreme Court’s New Public-Private Distinction Under the Dormant Commerce Clause: Avoiding the Traditional Versus Nontraditional Classification Trap, 37 Hastings Const. L.Q. 1 (2009), in Kellen S. Dwyer, Dormant Commerce Clause Review Of Public-Private Partnerships After United Haulers: A Competitive Bidding Solution, 18 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 203 (2011); and

• What Comes After Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in William H. Rodgers, Jr., Environmental Law (West, 2d ed. 2011 Supp.).

May 2011

Several of Brad’s articles were cited: 

Environmental Justice and Title VI: Making Recipient Agencies Justify Their Siting Decisions, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 787 (1999), was cited in James T. O'Reilly & Caroline Broun, RCRA and Superfund: A Practice Guide § 4.3 (3d ed. 2011 Supp.); 

The Draft Title VI Recipient and Revised Investigation Guidances: Too Much Discretion for EPA and a More Difficult Standard for Complainants?, 30 Envl L. Rep. 11144 (Envl L. Inst.) (Dec. 2000), was cited in James T. O'Reilly & Caroline Broun, RCRA and Superfund: A Practice Guide § 4.3 (3d ed. 2011 Supp.); and 

Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky L.J. 527 (1998), was cited in Alex Kardon, Damages Under the Privacy Act: Sovereign Immunity and a Call for Legislative Reform, 34 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 705 (2011).

April 2011

Brad’s most recent paper, Informational Standing After Summers, 39 B.C. Envtl Aff. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2011), has been accepted for publication.

Brad’s article, Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009), was cited in Douglas A. Kysar, What Climate Change Can Do About Tort Law, 41 Envtl. L. 1 (2011).

March 2011

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

·Rewarding Defendant Cooperation under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Judges vs. Prosecutors, 26 Crim. L. Bull. 399 (1990), in F. Lee Bailey & Kenneth J. Fishman, Handling Narcotic and Drug Cases (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2011 Supp.);

·Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Amy Widman,Advancing Federalism Concerns In Administrative Law Through A Revitalization Of State Enforcement Powers: A Case Study Of The Consumer Product Safety And Improvement Act Of 2008, 29 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 165 (2010);

·Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009), in Heather Elliott, Congress's Inability To Solve Standing Problems, 91 B.U. L. Rev. 159 (2011); and

·Standing and Statistical Persons: A Risk-Based Approach to Standing, 36 Ecology L.Q. 665 (2009), in Heather Elliott, Congress's Inability To Solve Standing Problems, 91 B.U. L. Rev.159 (2011).

February 2011

Several of Brad’s publications were cited:

·Legal Context: Reading Statutes in Light of Prevailing Legal Precedent, 34 Ariz. St. L.J. 815 (2002), in Anita S. Krishnakumar, Statutory Interpretation In The Roberts Court's First Era: An EmpiricalAnd Doctrinal Analysis, 62 Hastings L.J. 221 (2010);

· Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002), in Robert D. Cooter & Neil S. Siegel, Collective Action Federalism: A General Theory Of Article I, Section 8, 63 Stan. L. Rev. 115 (2010);

·What Comes After Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in Matthew D. Adler, Against "Individual Risk": A Sympathetic Critique Of Risk Assessment, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1121 (2005); and

· Public Participation (Chapter 31), in Brownfield's Law and Practice (Michael B. Gerrard ed. Matthew Bender 1998), was cited in Larry Schnapf, How The CERCLA Notification Requirements Facilitate The Creation Of Brownfields And What EPA Can Do To Address This Problem, 11 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 19 (2010).

January 2011

Brad’s article, Revisiting the Lyons Den: Summers v. Earth Island Institute’s Misuse of Lyons’ “Realistic Threat” of Harm Standing Test, 42 Ariz. St. L.J. 837 (2010), is now in print.

Brad’s article, The Supreme Court’s New Public-Private Distinction Under the Dormant Commerce Clause: Avoiding the Traditional Versus Nontraditional Classification Trap, 37 Hastings Const. L.Q. 1 (2009), was cited in Lawrence Fogel, Serving A "Public Function": Why Regional Cap-And-Trade Programs Should Survive A Dormant Commerce Clause Challenge, 2010 Wis. L. Rev. 1313.

December 2011

Brad’s article, Revisiting The Lyons Den: Summers v. Earth Island Institute's Misuse Of Lyons's "Realistic Threat" Of Harm Standing Test, 42 Ariz. St. L. 837 (2010), is now in print.

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Stephanie Tai, When Natural Science Meets the Dismal Science, 42 Ariz. St. L.J. 949 (2010);
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Gillian E. Metzger, Federalism And Federal Agency Reform, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (2011); and in Alexander Lemann, Sheep In Wolves' Clothing: Removing Parens Patriae Suits Under The Class Action Fairness Act, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 121 (2011);
• Suing Under § 1983: The Future after Gonzaga v. Doe, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 1417 (2003), in Michelle Ghaznavi Collins, Opening Doors To Fair Housing: Enforcing The Affirmatively Further Provision Of The Fair Housing Act Through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 2135 (2010);
• Summers v. Earth Island Institute Rejects Probabilistic Standing, But Laidlaw Still Leaves an Opening for Threatened Injuries, 40 Envtl. L. 89 (2010), in Gillian E. Metzger, Federalism And Federal Agency Reform, 111 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (2011); and
• The Supreme Court’s New Public-Private Distinction Under the Dormant Commerce Clause: Avoiding the Traditional Versus Nontraditional Classification Trap, 37 Hastings Const. L.Q. 1 (2009), in Stephanie Tai, When Natural Science Meets the Dismal Science, 42 Ariz. St. L.J. 949 (2010).

November 2010

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Mark A. Latham, (Un)Restoring The Chemical, Physical, And Biological Integrity Of Our Nation's Waters: The Emerging Clean Water Act Jurisprudence Of The Roberts Court,  28 Va. Envtl. L.J. 411 (2010);
• Standing and Statistical Persons: A Risk-Based Approach to Standing, 36 Ecology L.Q. 665 (2009), in Robert J. Pushaw, Jr., Limiting Article III Standing To "Accidental" Plaintiffs: Lessons From Environmental And Animal Law Cases, 45 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (2010); and
• Suing Under § 1983: The Future after Gonzaga v. Doe, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 1417 (2003), in  Daniel P. Tokaji, Public Rights and Private Rights of Action: The Enforcement of Federal Election Laws, 44 Ind. L. Rev. 113 (2010).

October 2010

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Roberet L. Glicksman, The Constitution, the Environment, and the Prospect of Enhanced Executive Power, 40 Envtl. L. Rep. 11002 (2010);
• 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), in Ronna Greff Schneider, Education Law: First Amendment, Due Process, and Discrimination Litigation (West Group, 2010 Supp.);
• Are Title VI's Disparate Impact Regulations Valid?, 71 U. Cin. L. Rev. 517 (2002), in Ronna Greff Schneider, Education Law: First Amendment, Due Process, and Discrimination Litigation (West Group, 2010 Supp.);
• Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA’s Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000), in William H. Rodgers, Jr., Environmental Law (West, 2d ed. 2010 Supp.);
• What Comes After Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in William H. Rodgers, Jr., Environmental Law (West, 2d ed. 2010 Supp.);
• Environmental Justice and Discriminatory Siting: Risk-Based Representation and Equitable Compensation, 56 Ohio St. L. J. 329 (1995), in James T. O'Reilly & Caroline Broun, RCRA and Superfund: A Practice Guide (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 3d ed. 2010 Supp.); and
• Using Section 1983 to Enforce Title VI’s Section 602 Regulations, 49 Kan. L. Rev. 321 (2001), in Ronna Greff Schneider, Education Law: First Amendment, Due Process, and Discrimination Litigation (West Group, 2010 Supp.).

Brad presented his paper, Informational Standing after Summers vs. Earth Island Institute, at the First Annual Colloquium on Environmental Scholarship at the Vermont Law School, Oct. 22, 2010.

September 2010

Brad’s article, Summers v. Earth Island Institute: Its Implications for Future Standing Decisions, was published by the Environmental Law Institute® in 40 Environmental Law Reporter 10958-10973 (October 2010).

Brad’s new article,  Standing in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms: Using Economic Injury as a Basis for Standing When Environmental Harm is Difficult to Prove, has been accepted for publication in the Pennsylvania State Law Review.

Several of Brad’s publications were cited:

• 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), in Lumen N. Mulligan, Federal Courts Not Federal Tribunals, 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. 175 (2010);
• Legal Context: Reading Statutes in Light of Prevailing Legal Precedent, 34 Ariz. St. L.J.l 815 (2002), in Lumen N. Mulligan, Federal Courts Not Federal Tribunals, 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. 175 (2010);
• The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2010 Supp.);
• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2010 Supp.);
• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2010 Supp.);
• 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 (1999), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2010 Supp.);
• Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2010 Supp.);
• Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2010 Supp.); and
• Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky L.J. 527 (1998), in Brian G. Slocum, The Importance of Being Ambiguous: Substantive Canons, Stare Decisis, and the Central Role of Ambiguity Determinations in the Administrative State, 69 Md. L. Rev. 791 (2010).

Summer 2010

Several of Brad’s publications were cited:

• Can Plaintiffs Use Multinational Environmental Treaties as Customary International Law to Sue Under the Alien Tort Statute?, 2007 Utah L. Rev. 1085, in Kathleen Jaeger, Environmental Claims under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 519 (2010);
• Civil Remedies, in Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, 183 (Michael B. Gerrard ed. 2007), in Deepa Badrinarayana, Global Warming: A Second Coming for International Law? 85 Wash. L. Rev. 253 (2010);
• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Mark A. Latham, (Un)restoring the Chemical, Physical, and Biological Integrity of Our Nation's Waters: the Emerging Clean Water Act Jurisprudence of the Roberts Court, 28 Va. Envtl. L.J. 411 (2010);
• Protecting the Environment for Future Generations: A Proposal for a "Republican" Superagency, 5 NYU Envtl L.J. 444 (1996), in J. B. Ruhl, Climate Change Adaptation and the Structural Transformation of Environmental Law, 40 Envtl. L. 363 (2010); and in Jonathan S. Masur & Jonathan Remy Nash, The Institutional Dynamics of Transition Relief, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 391 (2010).
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Hae-June Ahn, Tribal Governments Should Be Entitled to Special Solicitude: the Overarching Sentiment of the Parens Patriae Doctrine, 37 Ecology L.Q. 625 (2010);
• Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009), in Michelle Fon Anne Lee, Surviving Summers, 37 Ecology L.Q. 381 (2010);
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Hae-June Ahn, Tribal Governments Should Be Entitled to Special Solicitude: the Overarching Sentiment of the Parens Patriae Doctrine, 37 Ecology L.Q. 625 (2010); and in Amy L. Stein, Climate Change under Nepa: Avoiding Cursory Consideration of Greenhouse Gases, 81 U. Colo. L. Rev. 473 (2010);
• Summers v. Earth Island Institute Rejects Probabilistic Standing, But Laidlaw Still Leaves an Opening for Threatened Injuries, 40 Envtl. L. 89 (2010), in Michelle Fon Anne Lee, Surviving Summers, 37 Ecology L.Q. 381 (2010);
• Superfund Contractors and Agency Capture, 2 N.Y.U. Envtl L.J. 34 (1993), in Jonathan S. Masur & Jonathan Remy Nash, The Institutional Dynamics of Transition Relief, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 391 (2010); and
• Brad’s essay, Standing in Monsanto Co. v. Geerston Seed Farms: Using Economic Injury as a Basis for Standing when Environmental Harm is Difficult to Prove, ___ Penn. St. L. Rev. ___ (forthcoming 2011), was accepted for publication.

Brad also completed an article, Summers v. Earth Island Institute: A Flawed Standing Decision, 40 Envtl. L. Rep. ___ (forthcoming 2010), which was a solicited article based in part on Brad’s presentation at a symposium at Georgetown Law School on February 26, 2010.

June 2010

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in David M. Metres, The National Impact Test: Applying Principled Commerce Clause Analysis to Federal Environmental Regulation, 61 Hastings L.J. 1035 (2010); and in J. D. Ruhl & James Salzman, Climate Change, Dead Zones, and Massive Problems in the Administrative State: A Guide for Whittling Away, 98 Cal. L. Rev. 59 (2010).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in John O. McGinnis, Accelerating AI, 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 366 (2010).
• Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009); and Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Amy J. Wildermuth & Lincoln L. Davies, Standing on Appeal, 2010 U. Ill. L. Rev. 957.
• Using Section 1983 to Enforce Title VI’s Section 602 Regulations, 49 Kan. L. Rev. 321 (2001), in April Kuehnhoff, Holding on to Home: Preventing Eviction and Termination of Tenant-Based Subsidies for Limited English Proficiency Tenants Living in Housing Units with HUD Rental Assistance, 17 Geo. J. Poverty L. & Pol'y 221 (2010).

May 2010

Brad spoke at Northwestern on a panel on The Climate Change Lawsuits as part of the Judicial Symposium on Expansion of Liability Under Public Nuisance. He participated in a debate on Environmental Protection: Government Regulation vs. Free-Market Solutions, sponsored by the Ohio Northern University chapter of the Federalist Society and the Environmental Law Society.

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• 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), in Lynn Ridgeway Zehrt, Retaliation's Changing Landscape, 20 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 143 (2010).
• Environmental Justice and Title VI: Making Recipient Agencies Justify Their Siting Decisions, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 787 (1999); 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 (Envtl L. Inst.) (Apr. 2002); and The Draft Title VI Recipient and Revised Investigation Guidances: Too Much Discretion for EPA and a More Difficult Standard for Complainants?, 30 Envl L. Rep. 11144 (Envl L. Inst.) (Dec. 2000), in James T. O'Reilly & Caroline Broun, RCRA and Superfund: A Practice Guide (Thomson-West, 3d ed. 2010 Supp.).
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231(1996), in Kathryn A. Watts, The Honorable John Paul Stevens: Security: From Chevron to Massachusetts: Justice Stevens's Approach to Securing the Public Interest, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1021.
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Amy L. Stein, Climate Change under NEPA: Avoiding Cursory Consideration of Greenhouse Gases, 81 U. Colo. L. Rev. 473 (2010).
• Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky L.J. 527 (1998), in John F. Manning, Clear Statement Rules and the Constitution, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 399 (2010).
• Using Section 1983 to Enforce Title VI’s Section 602 Regulations, 49 Kan. L. Rev. 321 (2001), in Chinh Q. Le, Racially Integrated Education and the Role of the Federal Government, 88 N.C. L. Rev. 725 (2010).

April 2010

Brad published Summers v. Earth Island Institute Rejects Probabilistic Standing, But Laidlaw Still Leaves an Opening for Threatened Injuries, 40 Envtl. L. 89 (2010). His article, Revisiting the Lyons Den: Summers v. Earth Island Institute’s Misuse of Lyons’ “Realistic Threat” of Harm Standing Test, was accepted for publication in the Arizona State Law Journal.

Brad’s article, Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), was cited in Nicholas A. Fromherz & Joseph W. Mead, Equal Standing with States: Tribal Sovereignty and Standing after Massachusetts v. EPA, 29 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 130 (2010).

March 2010

Brad served as a panelist with Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler at Georgetown on Environmental Protection in the Balance: Citizens, Courts & the Constitution, sponsored by UC-Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment, the Environmental Law Institute, and Georgetown. He debated Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute at Property Rights and the Environment at the College, sponsored by the Federalist Society and the Environmental Law Society).

Brad’s article, Protecting the Environment for Future Generations: A Proposal for a "Republican" Superagency, 5 NYU Envtl L.J. 444 (1996), was cited in Jonathan Remy Nash, Allocation and Uncertainty: Strategic Responses to Environmental Grandfathering, 36 Ecology L.Q. 809 (2009).

January 2010

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Rewarding Defendant Cooperation under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Judges vs. Prosecutors, 26 Crim. L. Bull. 399 (1990), in F. Lee Bailey & Kenneth J. Fishman, Handling Narcotic and Drug Cases (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2009 Supp.).
• Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA’s Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000); and What Comes After Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in William H. Rodgers, Jr., Environmental Law (West, 2nd ed., 2009 Supp.)

Brad’s article, Standing and Statistical Persons: A Risk-Based Approach to Standing, 36 Ecology L.Q. 665 (2009), was featured in Legal Scholar Advocates Statistical Risk-Based Test For Lawsuit Standing, InsideEPA.com, Dec. 9, 2009.

December 2009

Brad published The Supreme Court’s New Public-Private Distinction under the Dormant Commerce Clause: Avoiding the Traditional versus Nontraditional Classification Trap, 37 Hastings Const. L.Q. 1 (2009). His article, Summers v. Earth Island Institute Rejects Probabilistic Standing, But a 'Realistic Threat' of Harm is a Better Standing Test, 40 Envtl. L. ___ (2010), was featured on Larry Solum's Legal Theory Blog.

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231 (1996), in Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction (Thomson-West, 2009 Supp.).
• 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 Va. Envtl. L.J. 75 (2005); and What Comes After Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in Alex Jackson, EPA's Fuzzy Bright Line Approach to Residual Risk, 36 Ecology L.Q. 439 (2009).

October 2009

Brad’s article, Summers v. Earth Island Institute Rejects Probabilistic Standing, But Laidlaw Still Leaves an Opening for Threatened Injuries, was accepted for publication in Environmental Law.

Brad’s article, Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), was cited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company Inc., 2009 WL 2996729 (2d Cir. Sept. 21, 2009), which held that states had standing to bring public nuisance suits against public utility companies such as AEP or Duke Energy. The original three-judge panel included Sonia Sotomayor, but the decision was issued by the remaining two judges.

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Scott Schwartz, The Hapless Ecosystem: A Federalist Argument in Favor of an Ecosystem Approach to the Endangered Species Act, 95 Va. L. Rev. 1325 (2009); and Preston Carter, “If an (Endangered) Tree Falls in the Forest, and No One Is Around . . . .”: Resolving the Divergence between Standing Requirements and Congressional Intent in Environmental Legislation, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 2191 (2009).
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231 (1996), in Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction (Thomson-West, 2009 Supp.).
• Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009), in Benjamin I. Narodick, Winter v. National Resources Defense Council: Going into the Belly of the Whale of Preliminary Injunctions and Environmental Law, 15 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 332 (2009).

Summer 2009

Brad’s article, The Supreme Court’s New Public-Private Distinction under the Dormant Commerce Clause: Avoiding the Traditional versus Nontraditional Classification Trap, was accepted for publication in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. The ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice published an abridged version of his article, Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009).

Brad presented Summers Rejects Probabilistic Standing, But Laidlaw Still Leaves an Opening for Threatened Injuries as part of the 13th Annual UC Faculty Summer Scholarship Series. The City of Cincinnati’s Council adopted an Environmental Justice Ordinance, a project on which Brad has consulted. Brad was elected to the Board of Trustees of the Mill Creek Restoration Project.

Several of Brad’s publications were cited:

• The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003); Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007); Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007); 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 (1999); Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002); and Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2009 Supp.).
• Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky L.J. 527 (1998), in John F. Manning, Federalism and the Generality Problem in Constitutional Interpretation, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 2003 (2009); Ramaah Sadasivam, Oops, We Did it Again (Or Did We?): United States v. General Battery Corp. and Corporate Successor Liability under CERCLA, 42 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1649 (2009); and James J. Brudney & Corey Ditslear, The Warp and Woof of Statutory Interpretation: Comparing Supreme Court Approaches in Tax Law and Workplace Law, 58 Duke L.J. 1231 (2009).
• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Justin F. Marceau, Lifting the Haze of Baze: Lethal Injection, the Eighth Amendment, and Plurality Opinions, 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 159 (2009).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005); Protecting the Environment for Future Generations: A Proposal for a "Republican" Superagency, 5 NYU Envtl L.J. 444 (1996); and Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Robert A. Weinstock, Lorax State: Parens Patriae and the Provision of Public Goods, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 798 (2009).
• Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA’s Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000), in Ramaah Sadasivam, Oops, We Did it Again (Or Did We?): United States v. General Battery Corp. and Corporate Successor Liability under CERCLA, 42 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1649 (2009).
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231(1996), in Stephanie Tai, Uncertainty about Uncertainty: The Impact of Judicial Decisions on Assessing Scientific Uncertainty, 11 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 671 (2009).
• 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 Va. Envtl. L.J. 75 (2005); and What Comes after Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in Alex Jackson, EPA's Fuzzy Bright Line Approach to Residual Risk, 36 Ecology L.Q. 439 (2009).
• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Kenton J. Skarin, Not All Violence Is Commerce: Noneconomic, Violent Criminal Activity, RICO, and Limitations on Congress under the Post Raich Commerce Clause, 13 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 187 (2009).
• Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI and Environment Justice, in The Law of Environmental Justice (ABA, 2d ed. 2008) (Michael B. Gerrard & Sheila Foster eds.), in Shelley Ross Saxer, Banishment of Sex Offenders: Liberty, Protectionism, Justice, and Alternatives, 86 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1397 (2009).

June 2009

Brad consulted with the City Solicitor’s Office on the drafting an the environmental justice ordinance for the City of Cincinnati. The City Council’s Health & Environment Committee approved the ordinance on May 27th. City Council will vote on it on June 3rd.

Several of Brad’s publications were cited:

• Environmental Justice and Title VI: Making Recipient Agencies Justify Their Siting Decisions, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 787 (1999); The Draft Title VI Recipient and Revised Investigation Guidances: Too Much Discretion for EPA and a More Difficult Standard for Complainants?, 30 Envl L. Rep. 11144 (Envl L. Inst.) (Dec. 2000); and 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 (April 2002), in James T. O'Reilly & Caroline Broun, RCRA and Superfund: A Practice Guide (Thomson-West, 3d ed. 2009 Supp.).
• Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky L.J. 527 (1998), in Thomas A. Bishop, The Death and Reincarnation of Plain Meaning in Connecticut: A Case Study, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 825 (2009).

May 2009

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231 (1996), in Alexander Volokh, Choosing Interpretive Methods: A Positive Theory of Judges and Everyone Else, The Legal Workshop, Apr. 20, 2009.
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in N.C. ex rel. Cooper v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 593 F. Supp. 2d 812 (W.D.N.C. 2009).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Megha Shah, Grassroots Enforcement of EISA: The Need for a Citizen Suit Provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 488 (2009).
• What Comes After Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in William H. Rodgers, Environmental Law (West 2008 Supp.)

April 2009

Brad published Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009). Two of his articles were cited:

• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in William J. Cantrell, Cleaning up the Mess: United Haulers, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and Transaction Costs Economics, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 149 (2009).
• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Michael L. Eber, When the Dissent Creates the Law: Cross-cutting Majorities and the Prediction Model of Precedent, 58 Emory L.J. 207 (2008).

March 2009

Two of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Michael L. Eber, When the Dissent Creates the Law: Cross-cutting Majorities and the Prediction Model of Precedent, 58 Emory L.J. 207 (2008).
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Randall S. Abate, Massachusetts v. EPA and the Future of Environmental Standing in Climate Change Litigation and Beyond, 33 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 121 (2008).

February 2009

Brad’s article, After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), was cited in Noelle Formosa, Ganging up on RICO: Narrowing Gonzales v. Raich to Preserve the Significance of the Jurisdictional Element as a Constitutional Limitation in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 135 (2008).

January 2009

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Thane Rehn, RICO and the Commerce Clause: A Reconsideration of the Scope of Federal Criminal Law, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 1991 (2008).
• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in Brannon P. Denning, Reconstructing the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine, 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 417 (2008).
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in North Carolina v. Tennessee Valley Authority, No.1:06-cv-00020-LHT (W.D. North Carolina, Jan. 13, 2009).
• Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. ___ (2009), in Kimberly N. Brown, Justiciable Generalized Grievances, 68 Md. L. Rev. 221 (2008).

December 2008

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231 (1996), in Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction (Thomson-West, 2008 Supp.).
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Christie Henke, Giving States More to Stand On: Why Special Solicitude Should Not Be Necessary, 35 Ecology L.Q. 385 (2008).
• Suing Under § 1983: The Future after Gonzaga v. Doe, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 1417 (2003), in Rosalie Berger Levinson, Misinterpreting “Sounds of Silence”: Why Courts Should Not “Imply” Congressional Preclusion of § 1983 Constitutional Claims, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 775 (2008).
• Superfund Contractors and Agency Capture, 2 N.Y.U. Envtl L.J. 34 (1993), in Sara Clark, In the Shadow of the Fourth Circuit: Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 35 Ecology L.Q. 143 (2008).
• http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/staev13&collection=journals&id=285, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994) and Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA’s Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000), in William H. Rodgers, Jr., Environmental Law (West, 2nd ed., 2008 Supp.)

November 2008

Mayor Mallory appointed Brad to the Green Cincinnati Steering Committee. Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Environmental Justice and Title VI: Making Recipient Agencies Justify Their Siting Decisions, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 787 (1999); The Draft Title VI Recipient and Revised Investigation Guidances: Too Much Discretion for EPA and a More Difficult Standard for Complainants?, 30 Envl L. Rep. 11144 (Envl L. Inst.) (Dec. 2000); and 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 (April 2002), in James T. O'Reilly & Caroline Broun, RCRA and Superfund: A Practice Guide (Thomson West, 3d ed., 2008 Supp.).
• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007); and After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Daniel A. Farber, Climate Change, Federalism, and the Constitution, 50 Ariz. L. Rev. 879 (2008).
• Reforming State Brownfield Programs to Comply with Title VI, 24 Harv. Envtl L. Rev. 115 (2000), in James A. Kushner, Urban Neighborhood Regeneration and the Phases of Community Evolution after World War II in the United States, 41 Ind. L. Rev. 575 (2008).
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA's New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Gillian E. Metzger, Administrative Law as the New Federalism, 57 Duke L.J. 2023 (2008).

October 2008

Brad's article, Standing and Statistical Persons: Should Large Public Interest Organizations Have Greater Standing Rights than Individuals?, was accepted for publication in the Ecology Law Quarterly.

Summer 2008

Brad presented Standing and Statistical Persons: Should Large Public Interest Organizations Have Greater Standing Rights Than Individuals? as part of the 12th Annual UC Faculty Summer Scholarship Series.

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in Kenneth L. Karst, From Carbone to United Haulers: The Advocates' Tales, 2007 Sup. Ct. Rev. 237.
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231(1996), in John F. Manning, Lessons from a Nondelegation Canon, 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1541 (2008); Jason J. Czarnezki, An Empirical Investigation of Judicial Decisionmaking, Statutory Interpretation, and the Chevron Doctrine in Environmental Law, 79 U. Colo. L. Rev. 767 (2008); and Alexander Volokh, Choosing Interpretive Methods: A Positive Theory of Judges and Everyone Else, 83 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 769 (2008).
• 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 Va. Envtl. L.J. 75 (2005), in Bradley C. Karkkainen, Bottlenecks and Baselines: Tackling Information Deficits in Environmental Regulation, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1409 (2008).
• Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA's Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000), in William H. Rodgers, Environmental Law (West, 2008 Supp.).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Shi-Ling Hsu, A Realistic Evaluation of Climate Change Litigation Through the Lens of a Hypothetical Lawsuit, 79 U. Colo. L. Rev. 701 (2008).
• Suing Under � 1983: The Future after Gonzaga v. Doe, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 1417 (2003), in Jon Donenberg, Medicaid and Beneficiary Enforcement: Maintaining State Compliance with Federal Availability Requirements, 117 Yale L.J. 1498 (2008).
• What Comes After Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in Thomas O. McGarity, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Migrating Hot Spots, and the Prospect of Data-driven Regulation of Complex Industrial Complexes, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1445 (2008); and NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

June 2008

Brad published:

• Can Plaintiffs Use Multinational Environmental Treaties as Customary International Law to Sue Under the Alien Tort Statute?, 2007 Utah L. Rev. 1085 (2007)
• Title VI and Environment Justice, and Executive Order 12,898, in The Law of Environmental Justice (Michael B. Gerrard & Sheila Foster, eds.) (ABA, 2d ed. 2008).

Brad's article, Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), was cited in Daniel A. Crane, Antitrust Antifederalism, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2008).

May 2008

Brad published 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). He posted Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn? on SSRN.

Brad serves as a member of the City of Cincinnati Climate Change Steering Committee, which issued its final report to City Council.

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in David B. Edwards, Out of the Mouth of States: Deference to State Action Finding Effect in Federal Law, 63 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 429 (2008).
• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in Daniel A. Crane, Antitrust Antifederalism, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2008).
• The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003), in Augusta Wilson, Of Ponds and Pot: How Rapanos Ignored Raich and the Potential Role for Cooperative Federalism, 17 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 453 (2008).

April 2008

Brad's article, Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, was accepted for publication in the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law.

Several of Brad's publications were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Frank D'Angelo, Turf Wars: Street Gangs and the Outer Limits of RICO's 'Affecting Commerce' Requirement, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 2075 (2008).
• The Draft Title VI Recipient and Revised Investigation Guidances: Too Much Discretion for EPA and a More Difficult Standard for Complainants?, 30 Envl. L. Rep. 11144 (Envl. L. Inst.) (Dec. 2000), and Executive Order 12,898, in The Law of Environmental Justice (Michael B. Gerrard & Sheila Foster eds., ABA, 2d ed. 2008), in Matthew D. Adler, Risk Equity: A New Proposal, 32 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 1 (2008).
• Environmental Justice and Discriminatory Siting: Risk-Based Representation and Equitable Compensation, 56 Ohio St. L. J. 329 (1995), in Noah D. Hall, Political Externalities, Federalism, and a Proposal for an Interstate Environmental Impact Assessment Policy, 32 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 49 (2008).
• Public Participation in the Cleanup and Redevelopment Process, in Brownfield's Law and Practice (Michael B. Gerrard ed., Matthew Bender 1998), and Reforming State Brownfield Programs to Comply with Title VI, 24 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 115 (2000), in Oni N. Harton, Indiana's Brownfields Initiatives: A Vehicle for Pursuing Environmental Justice or Just Blowing Smoke?, 41 Ind. L. Rev. 215 (2008).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Jonathan Remy Nash, Standing and the Precautionary Principle, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 494 (2008).

February 2008

Brad was appointed as representative of the City's Environmental Advisory Council to Mayor Mallory's Steering Committee on Climate Change, which is developing a scheme to reduce the City of Cincinnati's emissions of greenhouse gases.

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Civil Remedies, in Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, 183 (Michael B. Gerrard ed. 2007), in Erin Overturf, Book Review, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 74 (2007) (reviewing Global Climate Change and U.S. Law (Michael B. Gerrard, ed. 2007)).
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231(1996), in Courtney Covington, Rapanos v. United States: Evaluating the Efficacy of Textualism in Interpreting Environmental Laws, 34 Ecology L.Q. 801 (2007).
• Rewarding Defendant Cooperation under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Judges vs. Prosecutors, 26 Criminal L. Bull. 399 (1990), in F. Lee Bailey and Kenneth J. Fishman, Handling Narcotic and Drug Cases (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2007 Supp.).
• Superfund Contractors and Agency Capture, 2 N.Y.U. Envtl L.J. 34 (1993), in Reid Mullen, Statutory Complexity Disguises Agency Capture in Citizens Coal Council v. EPA, 34 Ecology L.Q. 927 (2007).

December 2007

Brad published Title VI and the Warren County Protests, 1 Golden Gate Envtl. L. Rev. 73 (2007). He presented Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA's New Standing Test for States at Louisville.

Two of Brad's articles were cited:

• Implementing Rapanos Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Michael C. Blumm & Sherry L. Bosse, Justice Kennedy and the Environment: Property, States' Rights, and a Persistent Search for Nexus, 82 Wash. L. Rev. 667 (2007).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Timothy C. Hodits, The Fatal Flaw of Standing: A Proposal for an Article 1 Tribunal for Environmental Claims, 84 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1907 (2006).

November 2007

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species Under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004), in Adrian Vermeule, Common Law Constitutionalism and the Limits of Reason, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 1482 (2007).
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231(1996), in Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction (Thomson West, 2007 Supp.).
• Legal Context: Reading Statutes in Light of Prevailing Legal Precedent, 34 Ariz. St. L.J. 815 (2002), in James D. Fry, Coercion, Causation, and the Fictional Elements of Indirect State Responsibility, 40 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 611 (2007).

October 2007

Brad's article, Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA's New Standing Test for States, was accepted for publication in the William & Mary Law Review. The article was featured on Larry Solum's Legal Theory Blog.

Brad participated in an online CLE program on Evolving Climate Change Regulations: Developing Trends in Law and Litigation sponsored by The Digest of Environmental Law and the Legal Publishing Group of Strafford Publications.

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA's Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000), in Marsh v. Rosenbloom, No. 05-0514-cv (Lead), 2007 WL 2416543 (2nd Cir., August 28, 2007).
• Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky L.J.l 527 (1998), in David S. Rubenstein, Putting the Immigration Rule of Lenity in its Proper Place: A Tool of Last Resort after Chevron, 59 Admin. L. Rev. 479 (2007).
• Civil Remedies, in Global Climate Change and U.S. Law 183 (Michael B. Gerrard ed. 2007), in Christina Ross, Evan Mills, & Sean B. Hecht, Limiting Liability in the Greenhouse: Insurance Risk-management Strategies in the Context of Global Climate Change, 26 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 251 (2007).
• The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003); Implementing Rapanos�Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007); Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007); 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 (1999); Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002); and Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2007 Supp.).

Summer 2007

Brad published After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007).

Brad presented Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens? as part of the 11th Annual UC Faculty Summer Scholarship Series. He completed the article and submitted it to law reviews.

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007); Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004); Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007); The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003); Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002); in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2007 Supp.)
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231 (1996); and Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky. L.J. 527 (1998), in Meredith Abernathy, Running on Empty: Will Exxon Mobil Cause a Breakdown for Chevron and the Administrative State?, 64 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 583 (2007).
• 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 (1999), in Daniel A. Farber, Disaster Law and Inequality, 25 Law & Ineq. 297 (Summer 2007).
• 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 Va. Envtl. L.J. 75 (2005); and What Comes After Technology: Using an “Exceptions Process” to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in Victor B. Flatt, Gasping for Breath: The Administrative Flaws of Federal Hazardous Air Pollution Regulation and What We Can Learn from the States, 34 Ecology L.Q. 107 (2007).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Eric Shaffner, Repudiation and Regret: Is the United States Sitting out the Kyoto Protocol to its Economic Detriment?, 37 Envtl. L. 441 (2007).
• Using Section 1983 to Enforce Title VI's Section 602 Regulations, 49 Kan. L. Rev. 321 (2001); and 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 (April 2002), in Andrew Spitser, School Reconstitution under No Child Left Behind: Why School Officials Should Think Twice, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1339 (2007).

June 2007

Brad published:

• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007).
• Implementing Rapanos-Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007).

Two of Brad's articles were cited:

• Suing under 1983: The Future after Gonzaga v. Doe, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 1417 (2003), in Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz, Discarded Deference: Judicial Independence in Informal Agency Guidance, 74 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (2007).
• Superfund Contractors and Agency Capture, 2 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 34 (1993), in Joseph A. Colquitt, Rethinking Judicial Nominating Commissions: Independence, Accountability, and Public Support, 34 Fordham Urb. L.J. 73 (2007).

Brad was quoted in Paul Webster, Is It Time to Hand Global Warming to the Lawyers?, Toronto Star, May 3 2007, at D3.

May 2007

As Chair of the City of Cincinnati's Environmental Advisory Council, Brad participated in the interview process for hiring a new Environmental Quality Manager for the City.

Two of Brad's articles were cited:

• Can Administrative Regulations Interpret Rights Enforceable under Section 1983?: Why Chevron Deference Survives Sandoval and Gonzaga, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 843 (2005), in Nina A. Mendelson, Regulatory Beneficiaries and Informal Agency Policymaking, 92 Cornell L. Rev. 397 (2007).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Troy L. Payne, Cartesian Eco-femdarkanism: She Comes from the Earth, Therefore We Are, 37 Envtl. L. 202 (2007).

April 2007

Brad's article, Can Plaintiffs Use Multinational Environmental Treaties as Customary International Law to Sue Under the Alien Tort Statute?, was accepted for publication in the Utah Law Review.

March 2007

Brad's article, Rewarding Defendant Cooperation under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Judges vs. Prosecutors, 26 Crim. L. Bull. 399 (1990), was cited in F. Lee Bailey & Kenneth J. Fishman, Handling Narcotic and Drug Cases (LexisNexis, 2007 Supp.).

January 2008

Brad published Title VI and the Warren County Protests, 1 Golden Gate Envtl. L. Rev. ___ (2007).

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004), in Mollie Lee, Environmental Economics: A Market Failure Approach to the Commerce Clause, 116 Yale L.J. 456 (2006).
• The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003), in Tova Wolking, Four Years after SWANCC; Regaining Ground in Federal Wetlands Protection, 33 Ecology L.Q. 933 (2006).
• Reforming State Brownfield Programs to Comply with Title VI, 24 Harv. Envtl L. Rev. 115 (2000), in Matthew D. Fortney, Devolving Control over Mildly Contaminated Property: The Local Cleanup Program, 100 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1863 (2006).

Please see Faculty News Archives for earlier issues.