THE NEED FOR FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF ALTERNATIVE BOND SYSTEMS UNDER SMCRA

The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) requires mine operators to post reclamation bonds before mining begins. The Federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) has approved alternative bond systems in seven states. These systems, rather than requiring bond amounts at the full cost of reclamation, require operators t o submit only a flat rate, acreage specific bond. Additional reclamation costs should be covered by a supplemental fund composed generally of permit fees, taxes, or penalties.
In many cases, alternative bond systems fail to ensure that funds will be available to reclaim coal mined land in the event of operator default, as required by SMCRA. OSMRE needs to take a more active role in oversight of existing state alternative bond systems to ensure that reclamation occurs.     

STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977

The implementation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 in coal producing states is guided by a partial preemption policy approach t h a t establishes a balance between federal and state decision-making authority. The usefulness of this approach is assessed by analyzing state enforcement actions in relation the institutional capacity of states to shoulder regulatory responsibilities and the propensity of the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) t o oversee state enforcement actions and, if necessary, to undertake corrective action. Our results indicated that state administration of SMCRA was canstrained by the lack of effective federal oversight but was largely unaffected by interstate differences in political, economic, or administrative characteristics.     

THE STATES AND DEREGULATION: THE CASE OF SURFACE MINING

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), passed to correct the abuses of surface mining, assigned key implementation roles to the states. While the federal government originally enforced SMCRA, states could operate the program themselves. Once states decided to run their own program the federal government would oversee them to insure they properly enforce the Act. This research examines the enforcement behavior of states in the 1980s. The results indicate that early in the Reagan administration eastern states enforced the SMCRA less stringently than other states. Eastern states increased their level of enforcement later in the 1980s in response to pressures for increased federal oversight from Congress, interest groups and others.     

THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 IN OKLAHOMA: STATE AND FEDERAL COHABITATION

The enforcement of the SMCRA in Oklahoma has led to improvements and transformations in the coal industry, state and federal regulatory agencies and the public. The catalyst for these changes was the federal takeover of inspection and enforcement of the SMCRA in Oklahoma with the state carrying on all other mining regulatory activities from 1984 through 1987. This pattern of cohabitation differed from that in Tennessee where OSM took over all enforcement of the SMCRA or that in states that enter into cooperative agreements to provide state regulation of coal mining on federal lands within the state. Cohabitation in Oklahoma produced a new, more positive attitude toward cooperative federalism by both federal and state regulatory bodies that might serve as a model for other states with OSM maintaining state agency support for policy objectives while allowing the state reasonable decisional discretion.     

From Coercion to Partnership in Federal Partial Preemption: SMCRA, RCRA, and OSH Act

This article examines the experiences of three important partial-preemptionprograms—the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Actof 1977 (SMCRA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970(OSH Act), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976 (RCRA)—over the last two decades to improve our understandingof how federal-state interactions have shaped the regulatorypartnership. The evidence we gather suggests that the controlof regulatory programs has shifted over time back and forthbetween the federal government and the states. In the initialyears of these programs, what the Congress intended to be aregulatory partnership was, in effect, almost total federalpreemption of state authority. Under the Ronald Reagan administration,the opposite occurred; federal regulation in many cases becamede facto state regulation as federal officials essentially abdicatedtheir oversight responsibility. By the end of the 1980s, thefederal government began again to assert greater control overintergovernmental regulatory programs. The regulatory relationshipthat emerged is one in which the federal government and thestates share responsibility and authority for the implementationof these programs.     

Toward Judicial Comity: Certification in the Courts

Certification is a procedure whereby federal courts may askstate courts of last resort to clarify an ambiguous provisionof state law. This increasingly popular device of deferenceoperates as an alternative to abstention and to the casual predictionof the meaning of state law. Certification is a permissive anddiscretionary mechanism; as such, it is neither universal inits usage nor uniform in its application. The thirty-eight statesthat authorize the procedure differ on which federal courtsmay participate and whether the answer to the certified questionmust determine, or resolve, the lawsuit. Our survey resultsindicate that federal and state judges alike praise certificationfor its contributions to intersystem harmony. It conserves judicialresources, advances litigant interests, minimizes interpretivemisguesses, and avoids repetitive litigation.     

Federal Court Responses to State and Local Claims of "Undue Burden" in Complying with The Americans with Disabilities Act

Are federal courts sympathetic to local and state officials'cost concerns, particularly when it comes to meeting the requirementsof the Americans with Disabilities Act? This is the fundamentalquery taken up by this analysis. After examining twenty-eightfederal ADA cases where state and local officials have goneto court claiming that complying with this civil rights measurewould be unduly burdensome, this study comes up with mixed findings.In some cases, the courts have been sensitive to cost concernsbut, in others, they have not. Despite these inconclusive findings,this study does cast some light on what state and local officialsmust do if they expect federal courts to be sensitive to theirconcerns.     

From Shaw v. Reno to Miller v. Johnson: Minority Representation and State Compliance with the Voting Rights Act

In 1994, four federal district courts applied the tests setforth in Shaw v. Reno in order to rule on the constitutionalityof congressional districting schemes that were comprised, inpart, of "majority-minority" districts. The difference of opinionthat arose among the lower courts indicated that Shaw had setforth unclear standards for determining (I) what role the federalcourts should play in monitoring state redistricting practices,and (2) whether a remedial redistricting plan is a racial gerrymander.Also, the disagreements exposed the weakness of some of theassumptions on which voting rights analysis is grounded. InMiller v. Johnson, the Supreme Court sought to address the lowercourts' concerns. Nonetheless, voting rights jurisprudence remainsunclear regarding (I) what constitutes a valid claim of vote-dilution,and (2) whether voting should be perceived as a group or individualright.     

The Burger Court and Younger Abstention: Enhancing the Role of State Courts in Constitutional Adjudication

An important determinant of federal balance is the degree ofstate court authority to decide federal constitutional issues.This study traces the development of the Younger abstentiondoctrine, one of the primary vehicles by which the Burger Courtrestricted federal court jurisdiction and enhanced the authorityof state courts in constitutional adjudication. The Youngerdoctrine was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1971 for reasonsof comity and equitable restraint. Throughout the Burger Courtyears, Younger was expanded from an initial denial of jurisdictionto litigants seeking injunctive relief in state criminal proceedings,to litigants in cases "akin" to criminal proceedings, and thento litigants in cases "important to state interests." By relyingon Younger abstention, the Burger Court has reduced the roleof the federal courts as the primary enforcement of U.S. constitutionalrights.     

ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT

Even a dozen years since the passage of the Surface Mining. Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) there is little agreement on how well i t has worked. The paper attempts to assess the impacts of SMCRA in six major surface coal producing states. Although i t is not possible to make an unqualified overall national assessment, the evidence presented in the paper indicates that in many (but by no means all) cases, surface coal mining is now carried out in environmentally less destructive ways then before the Act. However, the accomplishments have fallen far short of expectations. The situation in some states has gotten worse than before the Act. Overall, the impact of the Act on the ground has been mixed and has depended on the rigor with which the Act has been implemented in individual coal states.     

Bureaucratic Decisions and the Composition of the Lower Courts

I delineate necessary conditions for the ideological composition of the federal courts to influence bureaucratic decisions independently of lawsuits and test for the relationship with data on the implementation of wetlands policy. Examining 18,331 decisions by the Army Corps of Engineers over whether to issue a permit for the development of wetlands between 1988 and 1996, I analyze whether these decisions were influenced by the composition of the appellate and district courts. The results indicate that judicial ideology significantly affects bureaucratic decision making. Specifically, a standard deviation increase in the liberalism of the lower courts decreases the probability that the Corps will grant a permit by 14%, which is comparable to the effects of long-recognized determinants of administrative behavior.     

Federal Administration of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 in Oklahoma

SMCRA, which established detailed standards for the surfacemining of coal, attempted to balance the need to increase coalproduction with safeguarding the environment. The act was basedon the principle of cooperative federalism. The states wereoffered both positive and negative inducements to assume importantroles in the design and implementation of regulatory programsconsistent with the SMCRA. Oklahomas Department of Mines (DOM)carried out the provisions of the act so poorly that the federalOffice of Surface Mining (OSM) was compelled to take over SMCRAinspection and enforcement. Other provisions of the act wereadministered by DOM, which found itself in a condition of "cohabitation"with OSM from 1984–1987. During that time, DOM becamea stronger, technologically sophisticated agency; OSM gaineda greater appreciation of the difficulties of implementing astate program; the mining industry became reconciled to reclamationcontemporaneous with mining; and there was an increase in citizenparticipation. The return of primacy to Oklahoma may usher ina new federal relationship in surface mining regulation, withmore power shifting to the states as budget pressures reducefunds and the number of employees in OSM.     

The Judicial Theory of a Reasonable Public Servant

Contemporary theory of the constitutionally reasonable public servant, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982 in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, is measured in reference to clearly established constitutional or statutory rights that a reasonable person would have known. In this article, the author seeks to elucidate the evolving contours of the objective reasonableness standard and examines how federal courts have applied it. To gain a firsthand impression of how public officials challenged in federal courts are measuring up to the objective reasonableness standard, the author provides a snapshot of 449 recent court cases selected from two federal circuits, the Eighth and the District of Columbia circuits. He concludes that public officials in these two circuits have fared very well under the standard of objective reasonableness. The flip side is that aggrieved individual citizens must carry a heavy burden to protect their constitutional rights.     

Federalism and Full Faith and Credit: Must States Recognize Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages?

As Hawaii considers recognizing same-sex marriages, other stateshave started to ask whether, under the full faith and creditclause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, they could becompelled of recognize those marriages solemnized in Hawaii.Under Article IV, the Congress could legislate on the issueand provide further guidance to states. Federal courts couldintervene, and offer interpretations of the full faith and creditclause as it applies to same-sex marriages. Given the currentpolitical climate, however, it is unlikely that this issue willbe resolved, at least initially, by the federal government.Instead, the issue is likely to be decided in state courts andlegislatures, with the essential question being whether a sufficientstate public policy exists to exempt the state from the otherwisemandatory requirements of the full faith and credit clause.     

IMPLEMENTING A PROGRAM OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM IN SURFACE MINING POLICY

This article outlines the legislative history of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and describes the forces that promoted a federalist arrangement of shared powers and responsibility for implementing the environmental reclamation provisions of the Act. The major components of the Act are reviewed and the Act is examined in terms of its general effectiveness in promoting reclamation as well as its contribution to the practice of American federalism and the capacity of state government to implement complex regulatory programs. The article concludes that SMCRA has had a positive impact in terms of improving state capabilities, expanding public involvement in decision making, and enhancing federal and state cooperation.     

THE COURTS AND RISK ASSESSMENT1

In the past decade the federal courts have come to play an important role in reviewing agency decision-making on prospective risks. Questioning the conventional wisdom that judges are poorly equipped for the task, the authors outline the range of choices facing courts in such cases and contend that they cannot avoid making ultimate decisions on risk policy. However, recent Supreme Court cases on nuclear hazards and occupational benzene indicate narrowing of the scope for judicial review.     

Constitutional and Human Rights Disturbances: Australia’s Privative Clauses Created Both in an Immigration Context

With the arrival of another wave of “boat people” to Australian waters in late 2009, issues of human rights of asylum seekers and refugees once again became a major feature of the political landscape. Claims of “queue jumping” were made, particularly by some sections of the media, and they may seem populist, but they are also ironic, given the protracted efforts on the part of the federal government to stymie any orderly appeals process, largely through resort to “privative clauses”. Such clauses demonstrate the many ways in which human rights of those seeking asylum in far-off lands and are potential future immigrants, who often lack much-touted needed papers, yet who are for the most part genuine refugees, are subject to the slings and arrows of political fortune (and misfortune). Approaching the courts if treated unfairly or seeking a further decision as to your fate would seem one of the fundamental premises of human rights. Yet privative clauses—or attempts to ouster the jurisdiction of the courts and to insulate decisions from appeal—have become an increasingly frequent feature of the Australian migration legislation. With a seemingly watertight federal constitutional power set in stone since 1901, to deal with migration and aliens, and without the tempered contemporary update of a federal Bill of Rights, the Australian federal government has been able to narrow the grounds of judicial review in those contexts. We argue that the concerted efforts to deny such fundamental rights of appeal to those most in need of the full armoury of the protection of the law in a modern, affluent democracy, constitutes both a breach of their human rights and a breach of core constitutional principles such as separation of powers. Those principles may not be formally articulated in the text of the Australian Constitution, but in our view they are implicit in the constitutional arrangements, and hence we can conclude with the arguments of former Justice of the High Court of Australia, Michael Kirby, who asked—to whom does sovereignty truly belong?     

Racial Diversity and Judicial Influence on Appellate Courts

This article evaluates the substantive consequences of judicial diversity on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Due to the small percentage of racial minorities on the federal bench, the key question in evaluating these consequences is not whether minority judges vote differently from nonminority judges, but whether their presence on appellate courts influences their colleagues and affects case outcomes. Using matching methods, I show that black judges are significantly more likely than nonblack judges to support affirmative action programs. This individual‐level difference translates into a substantial causal effect of adding a black judge to an otherwise all‐nonblack panel. Randomly assigning a black counterjudge—a black judge sitting with two nonblack judges—to a three‐judge panel of the Courts of Appeals nearly ensures that the panel will vote in favor of an affirmative action program. These results have important implications for assessing the relationship between diversity and representation on federal courts.     

The changing role of the federal and state courts in safeguarding the rights of the mentally disabled

From the mid-1960s until the early 1980s, federal courts havegreatly expanded the rights of persons who have been institutionalizedfor treatment of mental illness. The rights have included dueprocess in commitment proceedings, provision of services, andtreatment in the least restrictive environment. Federal courtshave based their decisions on federal statutes and constitutionalprinciples of due process, equal protection, and protectionfrom harm. More recently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court haseffectively closed the federal courts as a forum for advancingthe rights of the mentally disabled. Federal courts must, inessence, defer to the states for decisions about treatment ofthe mentally disabled. State courts may decide what servicesare required under state law, while state mental health officialsmay decide specific treatment questions for individual patients.Consequently, advocates for the mentally disabled are turningto state courts to advance client rights. In 1984 two significantcases decided by the New York State Court of Appeals have thepotential for significantly expanding the rights of the mentallydisabled.     

The Legal Order and the Administration of Federal and State Courts

The Nigerian Constitution of 1989 establishes a system of federaland state courts, but within a structure of unified federal-statejurisdiction from the federal and state high courts, to thefederal Court of Appeal, and to the national Supreme Court.Thus, both sets of courts exercise jurisdiction with respectto federal and state laws. Although this system mitigates certainfederal-state jurisdictional conflicts, it does not eliminatesuch conflicts. At the same time, however, the Constitutionalso provides for Sharia courts of appeal under Moslem law andfor customary-law courts of appeal, thus establishing a tripartitesystem of justice. Although this system seeks to accommodateNigeria's ethnic and religious diversity, it does raise problemsfor national unity, judicial uniformity, and equity in the administrationof civil and criminal justice.