Judging the Environment In The News
Links to Articles, Editorials, Commentary, Blogs, Radio and TV about the Judging the Environment project
Click here for links to news articles about our original partner, Community Rights Counsel.
PROPERTY RIGHTS: Trump pick for 'rather esoteric court' fuels political storm (Greenwire, 06/21/17)
Amanda Reilly: Glenn Sugameli, an environmental attorney who founded the Judging the Environment project, said that the vagaries of takings law and lack of Supreme Court direction on key issues leave room for creativity in lawsuits brought before the claims court.
"A creative judge, an activist judge, can basically come up with a ruling which may ultimately be reversed on appeal but is not on its face clearly absurd in a way that would prevent it from being issued in the first place," he said.... Sugameli acknowledged that, as with other appeals courts around the country, the Federal Circuit "balances" out rulings by the Court of Federal Claims.
In the meantime, though, he said that "the law can be muddled, unjustifiable confusion can be introduced."
He added, "A lot of state courts from around the country, when they deal with a question of whether a state or local safeguard is a taking of private property, they will look for guidance to decisions from the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit."
Panel to vet nominee behind key takings, species cases (Environment & Energy (E & E) Daily, 06/12/17)
Amanda Reilly: Glenn Sugameli, an environmental attorney who founded and heads the Judging the Environment project, said he was concerned with Schiff's work at PLF. The group pushes "a very extreme unjustifiable version that only looks at the potential development of property and really ignores or fails to consider the impact that that would have on neighboring property and the public and the environment at large," Sugameli said.
Tom Cotton continues two-year blockade of judge confirmations (Arkansas Times, 09/14/16)
Max Brantley: "Sen. Tom Cotton continues to mount a one-man blockade to confirmation of judges to the depleted federal court of claims.
Thanks as ever to Glenn Sugameli of Judging the Environment, a judicial nominations project, for the update.
Tuesday, Cotton again blocked votes on five nominees twice approved unanimously by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee to a court with six vacancies. Cotton said he's not convinced the court needs more hands. Despite the two years of deliberation on these nominations and support from his own party, Cotton characterizes the process as a "rubber stamp" of presidential nominations.
With the Senate needing unanimous consent to move a vote, Cotton alone blocked it. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy said in a statement: '... Senate Republicans' obstruction playbook leaves no court behind. It spans from the very top, with their complete refusal to give a hearing and a vote to Chief Judge Merrick Garland, to the article III circuit and district courts, to the article I Court of Federal Claims, where citizens go to sue their government. This blockade of all five CFC nominees makes no sense, especially because not a single Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee raised a concern about these nominees either during the committee hearings on these nominations 2 years ago or during the Committee debate 2 years ago or last year.'
You could say Tom Cotton does not play well with others."
GOP freeze on judgeship includes single-handed Tom Cotton blockade (Arkansas Times, 12/09/15)
Max Brantley: "Glenn Sugameli, who heads the Judging the Environment judicial nominations project, called the Leahy statement to my attention. It has experienced court delay because of a shortage of claims judges. His organization is not alone in protesting Cotton's obstructionism. ... And you can read more here [link to Judging the Environment webpage] particularly on Cotton's blockade of Armando Bonilla."
CQ follows the money on Tom Cotton's blockade of federal judges (Arkansas Times, 07/21/15)
Max Brantley: "Todd Ruger of CQ Roll Call follows up on Sen. Tom Cotton's solo blockade of five nominees to vacant seats on the federal court of claims — an obscure court that is nonetheless very important to business for deciding federal contract disputes and tax claims.
Ruger notes that Cotton's action dovetails with interests of a former conservative law firm for which he worked and which contributed to his political campaigns.... Cotton suggests a judge has told him the current court can handle cases. That person has not been identified, while numerous judges and bar officials have spoken of the need for filling the vacancies. Based on research by Glenn Sugameli of Judging the Environment, a court monitoring project, an educated guess on Cotton's source would be Victor Wolski, Cotton's former colleague. He forthrightly said every job he ever took prior to his confirmation was ideologically orientated to further limited government, individual liberty and property rights. A Cotton clone, in other words. None of Cotton's concerns were raised in four previous Senate votes by the Judiciary Committee to confirm the nominees."
Ecosystem Services and the Potential Role for Markets (Oregon State University Extension Service, 08/01/11)
"Glenn Sugameli (1997) of the National Wildlife Federation argued that paying compensation to landowners for environmental restrictions would “impose massive costs on taxpayers” and “cause an inability to enforce protections for people, private property, and public resources."
Understanding Issues in Takings Cases Critical for Federal Circuit Judges (Daily Journal [CA] , 06/08/10)
Published Letter to the Editor from Judging the Environment's Glenn Sugameli: ""Seat Opens on Patent Appeals Court" (June 2) presented an incomplete picture by describing
the creation of "another opening on the nation's top patent appeals court for President Barack
Obama to fill." . . .It is critical that Federal Circuit judges understand the very complex set of issues involved in
takings cases. Indeed, the court does not only set federal precedents; state courts across the
country heavily rely upon rulings by the "takings court."
Elena Kagan started Harvard environmental law program (USA Today, 05/11/10)
"She has an in-depth knowledge of the nuts and bolts of how issues work in the real world," Glenn Sugameli, an attorney at Defenders of Wildlife and founder of Judging the Environment, which monitors federal courts, tells Grist.
More Reaction to Kagan Nomination (Legal Times, 05/10/10)
Glenn Sugameli, staff attorney, Defenders of Wildlife “We welcome President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan, whose record shows an essential understanding of the importance of upholding and enforcing laws that protect people, wildlife and the environment. While she was dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan made environmental law a top priority. She helped found the Environmental Law Program, and in one of her most prominent hires, recruited prominent environmental scholar Jody Freeman to lead the program. Kagan also started an Environmental Law & Policy Clinic where students provide vital assistance on cases and policy. It is critical that Justice Stevens’ successor be fair-minded and experienced and understand why environmental laws were written.”
SUPREME COURT: Kagan introduced as nominee (Greenwire, 05/10/10)
"We look forward to the Senate's deliberations on this important nomination as the court is sharply and closely divided on the fate of basic environmental safeguards and citizens' access to court. Respect for and understanding of environmental laws that protect all Americans are essential," said Glenn Sugameli, a staff attorney at Defenders of Wildlife who leads the advocacy group's Judging the Environment project. "The next justice will help determine the fate of basic environmental safeguards for decades to come."
Obama Nominates Solicitor General Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court (Environment News Service, 05/10/10)
Glenn Sugameli, founder and head of the environmental community's Judging the Environment project, said, "We welcome President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan, whose record shows an essential understanding of the importance of upholding and enforcing laws that protect people, wildlife and the environment."
"While she was dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan made environmental law a top priority," said Sugameli. "She helped found the Environmental Law Program, and, in one of her most prominent hires, recruited prominent environmental scholar Jody Freeman to lead the program. Kagan also started an Environmental Law and Policy Clinic where students provide vital assistance on cases and policy."
"It is critical that Justice Stevens' successor be fair-minded and experienced and understand why environmental laws were written," Sugameli said.
Elena Kagan, climate realist (Grist, 05/10/10)
"She has an in-depth knowledge of the nuts and bolts of how issues work in the real world," said Glenn Sugameli, an attorney at Defenders of Wildlife and founder of Judging the Environment, which monitors federal courts. "That's important because, if you look at the current court, they're almost all lifetime ‘judicial monastery' types. They're so used to looking at things from a judge's standpoint that they don't really understand them."
Wednesday round-up (SCOTUSBlog, 04/28/10)
"Glenn Sugameli, writing for ACSblog, recalls the perceived unlikelihood of the Monsanto petition being granted and reviews the Court’s recent record in environmental cases."
The Supreme Court’s Activist, Pro-Corporate Opinions and Case Selection (American Constitution Society Blog, 04/26/10)
Judging the Environment's Glenn Sugameli Guest Post: "understanding how the activist Court has undermined laws that protect ordinary Americans requires that attention must be paid to one-sided decisions whether or not to review environmental and other cases."
Earth Day Highlights Importance of Judicial Nominations, Lawmakers and Advocates Say (American Constitution Society Blog, 04/22/10)
"Federal courts decide the fate of lawsuits that attack safeguards for clean air, clean water, endangered species, and special natural places," Judging the Environment's Glenn Sugameli recently wrote at ACSblog. "Judges must uphold anti-pollution and conservation laws against unjustifiable claims that their enactment exceeded Congress' Commerce Clause authority, and that they take away non-existent 'property rights' to pollute." "Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens's retirement highlights just how much Americans rely on fair and independent judges to uphold and enforce laws that protect people and our environment," Sugameli concludes. EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson echoed Sugameli's sentiments today.
SUPREME COURT: Stevens to decide on retirement next month (Greenwire, 03/16/10)
While environmental groups would lose one of their most reliable supporters, said Glenn Sugameli, a staff attorney at Defenders of Wildlife, they will also lose a justice with "intangibles" -- including a relatively strong rapport with key swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy joined the majority in Massachusetts v. EPA, which provided the legal basis for EPA's emerging effort to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
"Any change on the Supreme Court could help decide the fate of environmental laws for decades to come. The court is very closely split, 5-4, on a number of major environmental issues," Sugameli said. "A new nominee will obviously be much younger and will likely be around to decide issues that nobody's really even thought of yet."
Supreme Court Denies 3 High-Profile Environmental Cases (Greenwire, 02/23/10)
The Supreme Court's decision to pass on the case leaves the Federal Circuit's decision as the precedent for future takings cases involving federal agencies. Because that court is the destination for nearly all appeals on federal claims cases, the ruling carries substantial weight, said Glenn Sugameli, a staff attorney with Defenders of Wildlife.
"A decision at that level is normally final right now, absent Supreme Court review," Sugameli said. If the Supreme Court had stepped in and sided with Rose Acre Farms on the takings claim, he added, "you could end up with all levels of government always erring on the side of not protecting public health."
Court Majority Rejected Justice O'Connor's 'Takings' Analysis in Eastern Enterprises (Daily Journal [CA] , 10/12/09)
Judging the Environment's Glenn Sugameli's published Letter to the Editor: Op-Ed "is fatally flawed by reliance on property rights 'takings' analysis in a non-existent 'majority opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor . . . . Both O'Connor's analysis and finding of a taking were rejected by a majority of the Court: the four Justices who disagreed with the result in the case and Justice Kennedy, who was the only Justice to find a due process violation. Since then, courts have ruled against Eastern Enterprises takings/ due process challenges to a wide range of laws."
Sotomayor Hearings Repeatedly Touched on Enviro Issues (New York Times, 07/17/09)
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor addressed major issues of concern to the environmental community during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings that ended yesterday, shedding some light on how she would approach cases concerning regulatory takings, the Constitution's Commerce Clause, as well as her views on upholding congressional action regarding protective measures such as the Clean Water Act.
"Environmental issues received more play than some may have thought they would during the week," said Glenn Sugameli, senior counsel for Earthjustice.
Rewriting Constitution (Lewiston Morning Tribune [ID], 04/26/09)
Glenn Sugameli (Judging the Environment) Letter: "The Constitution's Takings Clause states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." George Will urges the Supreme Court to approve a request by wealthy casinos to review an "Illinois case and reject the preposterous idea that money is not property within" this clause's scope. ("Illinois robs riverboat casinos to play the ponies, Tribune, April 12).
But as conservative columnist Matthew J. Frank explains, Will is wrong (National Review Online "Taking Stock of the Takings Clause"):
" '(M)oney is not property' where the takings clause is concerned (because) (t)he clause makes no sense otherwise." If a court found that a tax was for a "public use" so "the taking was valid," there must be compensation, meaning "the tax money, to the last penny, must be returned."
George Will does not like this Illinois levy because it benefits horse racing. He cannot, however, rewrite the Constitution to create takings claims against a levy that the casinos can seek to change though the legislature."
George Will misleading (Anniston Star [AL] , 04/24/09)
Published Letter to the Editor from Judging the Environment's Glenn Sugameli on two George Will columns that misread the Constitution.
Will off mark (Scranton Times-Tribune [PA], 04/21/09)
Published letter to the Editor from Judging the Environment's Glenn Sugameli rebutting columnist's constitutional property rights/ takings argument.
Delegation of power kept in check (Columbian [WA], 04/21/09)
Glenn Sugameli Letter to the Editor: "Ken Peterson misses the point in his April 10 letter, "Validate use of congressional power." Peterson correctly rejects, "The idea that Congress and the president can do whatever they want." However, he mistakenly praises George Will's March 29 column, "Congressional action violates Constitution," which makes a different, incorrect assertion. Will misleadingly promotes a discredited libertarian argument that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 is unconstitutional. Will selectively quotes a Jeffrey Rosen column, but ignores Rosen's conclusions that "it's not unconstitutional" and "libertarian arguments are doomed - and the libertarians know it." Will erroneously claims, "Since the New Deal era, (a) few laws have been invalidated on the grounds that they improperly delegated legislative powers." In fact, the only time federal laws were ever invalidated on this ground was in 1935 by the political, anti-New Deal Supreme Court. "
George Will got it wrong on stimulus bill (Daily Advertiser [Lafayette, LA], 04/21/09)
Published Letter to the Editor from Judging the Environment's Glenn Sugameli rebutting columnist's misreading of the Constitution.
George Will was mistaken (Vindicator [Youngstown, OH], 04/19/09)
Published Letter to the Editor from Judging the Environment's Glenn Sugameli regarding column on Constitution's Takings Clause.
The Federal Circuit (National Law Journal, 01/26/09)
Published letter to the editor from Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli on Federal Circuit nominations, "takings" claims and federal Indian law.
Letter to the Editor: Private property rights (Washington Times, 06/27/08)
Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli: "As a lawyer who helped defend against the takings claims in the case James L. Huffman describes in "Property rights and wrongs" (Commentary, Thursday), I was struck by how misleading and unfair Mr. Huffman's column is."
President Bush is creating artificial vacancies (Political Forum, 03/05/08)
Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli post explaining: "How the records of President George W. Bush's judicial selection process and his appellate nominees demonstrate that his nominees were chosen BECAUSE they would not be confirmed. "
Bush Judicial Nominees- Torture, Alice in Wonderland, Shoplifting, Ethics and more (American Constitution Society Blog, 02/29/08)
Blog posting by Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli featured on the American Constitution Society Blog comments on the controversial nominations of William Haynes, Jay Bybee, Claude Allen, Charles Pickering, Robert Conrad, Steve Matthews, Michael Wallace, William Myers, and Duncan Getchell.
Sen. Craig’s Attack on Federalism (Idaho Examiner, 01/17/08)
Comments by Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli to Idaho Examiner article on Senator Craig's failed Takings bill amendment.
Allard’s outrageous attack on federalism (Rocky Mountain News [CO] , 12/29/07)
Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli's Letter to the Editor of the Rocky Mountain News [CO] on Senator Allard's support for Senator Craig's Takings Amendment.
Misguided move on public land (Daily Camera [CO] , 12/27/07)
Letter to the Editor by Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli on Senator Craig's failed Takings Bill Amendment.
Comments (Telluride Daily Planet, 12/19/07)
Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli comments to the Telluride Watch Online's article on Senator Craig's Takings Amendment.
Sen. Allard's Attack on Federalism (Daily Camera [CO] , 12/18/07)
Daily Camera posts Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli's Letter to the Editor Blog on Senator Allard's support for Senator Craig's Farm Bill Amendment.
Comments (High Country News, 12/18/07)
Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli comments on the High Country News article, "Rebels with a Lost Cause" about the Takings Law.
Comments on Craig Amendment (Oregonian, 12/13/07)
Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli comments on Sen. Craig's efforts to ban local, state, and federal eminent domain for public parks.
Idaho loses fine state judge, gains fine U.S. judge (Lewiston Tribune [ID], 01/19/07)
Editorial by the Lewiston Tribune, quoting Earthjustice’s Glenn Sugameli. The editorial commends the President's decision to nominate Judge Randy Smith in place of withdrawn Ninth Circuit nominee, William Myers III.
4 white flags fly in courts fight (Los Angeles Times, 01/10/07)
White House decides not to resubmit William Myers and three others: "For the first time ever, a nominee for a lifetime federal judgeship has been forced to withdraw because his anti-environmental record generated bipartisan opposition," said lawyers for Earthjustice.
Bush's 9th Circuit pick withdraws his nomination (San Francisco Chronicle [CA], 01/10/07)
Opposed by environmental groups and Indian tribes, William Myers was the first judicial nominee to lose primarily because of his environmental record, said Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli: "As a lifetime Ninth Circuit judge, Myers would have had the power to turn his pro-industry bias into legal precedents governing nine Western states that contain nearly three-quarters of our public lands."
Anti-Environmental Judicial Nominee Myers Withdraws (Environment News Service, 01/10/07)
Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli hailed Myers' withdrawal: "The Senate blocked William Myers's nomination because of his discredited actions as the Interior Department's top lawyer. As the Department's Solicitor, he unjustifiably favored mining companies and other special interests at the expense of his responsibilities to enforce the laws that protect taxpayers, tribal rights, and the environment. Myers' legal positions as Interior Solicitor were rejected by the Interior Department and by federal and state courts."
Three-year Myers confirmation fight draws to a close (Environment & Energy (E & E) Daily, 01/09/07)
The Nomination of William Myers to the 9th Circuit was not resubmitted. "Myers's withdrawal is long overdue, and a victory for the environment," said Earthjustice
attorney Glenn Sugameli.
Myers withdraws nomination, pleasing environmentalists (Denver Post [CO] , 01/09/07)
Glenn Sugameli of Earthjustice cited William Myers' actions as the Interior’s Department top lawyer. “He unjustifiably favored mining companies and other special interests at the expense of laws that protect taxpayers, tribal rights and the environment.(If he had been confirmed), Myers would have had power to turn his pro-industry bias into legal precedents governing nine Western states.”
Group: Bush's Renomination of Controversial Judges Wrong Move (CivilRights.org, 11/16/06)
President Bush's decision on November 15 to renominate ten judges he pulled in early October has angered civil rights groups who say he is missing an opportunity to work in a bipartisan fashion with the newly Democratic Senate.
Radio Interview of Glenn Sugameli (Clear View radio, 10/05/06)
"Clear View" radio interview of Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli on judicial nominations and the environment.
Takings bill fails on House floor (Environment & Energy (E & E) Daily, 09/26/06)
Earthjustice’s Glenn Sugameli predicted the Senate would not approve the bill. The quick House vote "was definitely an attempt to get it out before anyone would know what was going on."
Court rules laws on wetlands apply to family's farm (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [PA], 09/03/06)
Article extensively quotes Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli on court decisions on "takings" and property rights including rejections of challenges to laws that "limit the ability of one property owner to use his property in a way that it harms others, and others' properties, the community and the environment."
The Empty Cowboy Hat rides again (Badlands Journal, 07/17/06)
Quotes entire factsheet by Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli on how "Representative Richard Pombo’s (R-CA) Endangered Species Act bill (HR 3824) ...would force taxpayers to pay unlimited amounts for any business losses from speculative development schemes that corporations never had the right to pursue in the first place."
Environmental Groups Oppose Alito for Supreme Court (About.com, 12/22/05)
"America depends upon Supreme Court justices to uphold and enforce our nation's environmental safeguards and to protect the rights of all Americans. We cannot afford to have someone like Judge Alito deciding which rights will be protected, and which will be thrown out," said Buck Parker, Executive Director of Earthjustice. "After a careful consideration of Judge Alito's record, we believe that, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, he would vote to roll back key protections for public health and the environment."
'Very concerned' enviros ponder justice nominee Alito's record (Greenwire, 11/01/05)
Glenn Sugameli: "Earthjustice is extremely concerned that Judge Alito has repeatedly sought to go even farther than the current Supreme Court majority in restricting Congress' authority to allow Americans to protect their rights in court, and to enact laws that protect our health and environment, . . . . the most important indication of how he might rule on the court is how he has ruled over the last 15 years."
TODAY IS THE DAY TO FIGHT FOR THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (updated) (Daily Kos, 09/29/05)
“The bill would create an unlimited new entitlement that would force hardworking taxpayers to write blank checks to big developers and corporations simply for obeying the law that prevents them from unreasonably wiping out species,” said Glenn Sugameli, Earthjustice’s Senior Legislative Counsel.
Estimates of payments under Pombo bill vary widely (Endangered Species & Wetlands Report, 09/01/05)
Glenn Sugameli, Earthjustice senior legislative counsel: “The CBO estimate of costs for Pombo’s bill is absurdly low, conclusory, and in conflict with economics, experience, the amount of pending ESA takings claims (not to mention Pombo’s and the Resources Committee’s estimates of lost profits and land value from ESA), logic and OMB’s estimate of the costs of similar” Contract with America provisions.
Court nominee (Idaho State Journal, 06/24/05)
Letter to the Editor by Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli on the reasons behind William G. Myers' failed nomination to the Ninth Circuit.
Groups Say New Justice Will Stymie Environmental Protection (Chemical Week, 06/15/05)
Janice Rogers Brown's record raises concerns that she will be "legislating from the bench," says Earthjustice attorney James Cox. Brown's record "reveals she's a staunch, opening activist opponent of fundamental government safeguards," he says.
Right-Wingers Running Full Court Press (Environmental News Network (ENN), 04/28/05)
Earthjustice Executive Director Buck Parker Commentary on right-wing attack against fair courts, including nuclear option, Ninth Circuit split and William Myers' nomination.
This is a poor nominee for judge (Albany Democrat-Herald [OR], 03/28/05)
Letter to the Editor by Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli on Ninth Circuit nominee William G. Myers' environmental record.
Rejected Last Year, Bush Anti-Environmental Judicial Nominees Are Back (Bush Greenwatch, 01/27/05)
Noting that the Senate has already approved 204 of President Bush's 260 nominees, Earthjustice senior legislative counsel Glenn Sugameli says "Renomination of so many judges who the Senate has refused to confirm has never happened before. President Bush is trying to convert the Senate into a rubber stamp."
Democrats dislike nominee's enviro record (Waste News, 08/02/04)
"Fortunately, a sufficient number of Senators saw through the Bush administration's attempt to turn an anti-environmental activist into a lifetime federal judge,'' said Buck Parker, executive director of Earthjustice.
Democrats Block Bush Judicial Nominee on Environmental Grounds (Environment News Service, 07/21/04)
“As his actions as Interior solicitor demonstrate, Mr. Myers sees nothing wrong with using public office to advance his personal agenda, which happens to match that of the mining and beef industries who employed him for most of his career,” said Buck Parker, executive director of Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm. “Fortunately, a sufficient number of senators saw through the Bush administration’s attempt to turn an anti-environmental activist into a lifetime federal judge.”
Tribes Protest Myers Nomination to 9th Circuit Court (NIFC, 04/16/04)
Leaders of Native American organizations will gather on Capitol Hill today to protest the nomination of attorney William G. Myers III to a lifetime seat on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Committee OKs judicial nominee (Associated Press, 04/02/04)
Associated Press article quotes Earthjustice's Jim Cox on William Myers being voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Panel OKs nomination to 9th Circuit (Billings Gazette [MT,WY], 04/02/04)
"As his opinions as Interior solicitor demonstrate, Mr. Myers sees nothing wrong with using his public office to advance his private agenda, which matches that of the mining and beef industries who employed him for most of his adult life," Earthjustice Executive Director Buck Parker said in a statement. "Worse, he is willing to twist the law to reach the result he'd like to see."
Groups Fight Nominee for 9th Circuit (Los Angeles Times, 02/05/04)
Los Angeles Times cites Earthjustice report and separately quotes Earthjustice's Buck Parker and Glenn Sugameli on 9th Circuit nominee William G. Myers III, who faces a tough confirmation battle as nearly 100 environmental, tribal, civil rights, labor and women's organizations have mounted a major campaign to defeat him in the Senate.
Nominee For 9th Circuit Will Face Senators (Daily Journal [CA] , 02/05/04)
"William Myers' only apparent qualifications for a seat on the 9th Circuit are that he has long been a lawyer and lobbyist for the mining and cattle industries and has used his public office as Interior solicitor to further their interests at the expense of Native Americans and the environment," Earthjustice executive director Buck Parker said.
Environmental, Civil Rights Groups Oppose Bush Judicial Nominee (Associated Press, 02/04/04)
Associated Press: Earthjustice's executive Director Buck Parker says Myers "He the clearest anti-environmental record of any of the nominees to date. He has made a career as a lobbyist and lawyer trying to overturn environmentally protective laws and regulations."
Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged (Grist, 02/04/04)
A coalition of more than 60 environmental, civil-rights, and Native American groups have sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee opposing the confirmation of William G. Myers III
Bush gives Pryor recess appointment to 11th Circuit; Myers grilled by senators (Endangered Species & Wetlands Report, 02/01/04)
“This is another slap in the face of the Constitutional process of judicial selection,” said Glenn Sugameli, Senior Legislative Counsel for Earthjustice. “President Bush is using a five-day Senate recess as a fig leaf to ride roughshod over the objections of senators, environmental groups, and many other concerned citizens.”
Judge confirmed to appeals court (Tribune-Democrat [Johnstown, PA], 08/01/03)
Glenn Sugameli of Earthjustice: “We’re very disturbed by this, based on his record. Obviously we’re disappointed. But we are pleased that a number of senators recognize there are a series of environmental issues in regard to this confirmation."
Claims Court Nominee Draws Fire (Daily Journal [CA] , 07/09/03)
Earthjustice’s Glenn Sugameli said that judges like Wolski could "essentially rewrite the Constitution" by accepting unjustified claims that government actions intended to provide safeguards for the environment, health or safety are "takings" of private property, "which means the taxpayers have to subsidize the companies to obey the law.".
Senate's July Work to Kick Off With Cloture Vote on Nominee (Congressional Quarterly, 06/27/03)
CQ Today: Wolski also has drawn fire from environmental groups who say he has spent most of his professional life fighting environmental protections, specializing in bringing property rights challenges to environmental and land-use restrictions.
"He is a self-professed, extreme ideologue on the very issues he would be deciding as a Court of Federal Claims judge," said Glenn Sugameli, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice, previously the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. "This is a court for which he is uniquely unqualified."
Critics Bash Bush on Earth Day (Environment News Service, 04/22/03)
It is not just the policies of the administration that have environmentalists worried, many believe some the President's judicial nominees pose a serious, longterm threat to the environment. The legality and enforcement of environmental laws is increasingly being determined by federal courts and several of the Bush nominees are on record with what many believe are extreme views on private property and federal jurisdiction that could contradict with fundamental environmental protections
COURTS: Bush gets second shot at bench nominations (Greenwire, 11/18/02)
With the GOP takeover, "the courts are going to be a particularly important place to challenge attempts to rollback environmental protections," said Glenn Sugameli, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice.
Liberals to choose their battles on judge nominees (Recorder, 11/12/02)
Article quotes Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli on impact of change in control of the Senate on judicial nominees, and filibusters as a plausible weapon against those nominees who are not qualified to serve.
Liberals Bracing for Quick Judicial Action by Bush (Los Angeles Times, 11/07/02)
Los Angeles Times quotes Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli on concerns about judges with extreme views that threaten basic protections for the environment and public health."
Mining company awarded $5 million in takings case (Endangered Species & Wetlands Report, 09/01/02)
Earthjustice attorney Glenn Sugameli, who has 15 years of SMCRA and takings law experience, said, “My main question is which is worse, Judge [Loren] Smith’s fundamental misunderstanding of SMCRA or his unsupportable rulings on takings.”
Judge: Coal rights trump public land (Lexington Herald-Leader [KY], 08/30/02)
Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli predicts reversal of "bizarre" ruling, saying the judge is at the forefront of a radical, no-controls agenda on property rights.
Hatch becoming something of a judge maker (Legal Times, 08/19/02)
Article reports that if Senate confirms nominee Lawrence Block, “no fewer than four former legal aides to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R. -- Utah) will be serving as federal judges.”
Biden, Jurist Face Day of Reckoning (Roll Call, 02/25/02)
Article quotes Community Rights Counsel's Doug Kendall and Earthjustice's Glenn Sugameli on opposition to 3rd Circuit nominee D. Brooks Smith.
Takings: Claims Court nominee raises concerns (Endangered Species & Wetlands Report, 12/01/01)
Earthjustice senior legislative counsel Glenn Sugameli was the lead author of a Nov. 29 letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Twenty-three national environmental groups signed the letter, which called for a “full and open” hearing on Block’s nomination.
High court ruling may muddy wetlands-development issues. (Post and Courier [SC], 06/29/01)
"Glenn Sugameli, senior counsel for the National Wildlife Federation, which filed "friend of the court" briefs in the case, agrees that Thursday's ruling eliminated an initial filter that reduced challenges to the regulations. The state's regulations could still hold up. "What was an absolute defense to challenges of the state's rules changes to a possible defense," he said. Thursday's ruling does not exclude other possible defenses of the regulations."
ESA took Calif. water rights, Claims Court judge rules (Endangered Species & Wetlands Report, 05/01/01)
Glenn Sugameli was highly critical of Wiese’s reasoning, noting the absence of any other decisions like it. “If you expand physical takings to this sort of regulatory context, where do you stop?” he asked. “Even courts that have been more receptive to regulatory takings have been very reluctant to expand physical takings, because you can lead to absolute rules. “I don’t think a number of grounds that the judge relies upon have clear stopping points,” he said. For example, a landowner who is prevented from cutting down a tree that serves as habitat for a listed species could claim a physical taking. The judge “gets around the parcel-as-a-whole issue” by concluding that the water limitations constitute a physical taking, Sugameli said. He also avoids any inquiry into whether the plaintiffs possessed reasonable investment-backed expectations.
Westerly Property-Rights Battle Lands In Supreme Court (Day [CT] , 04/08/01)
“You[r] right to throw your fist ends at my nose,” said Glenn Sugameli, ... “The threat of losing these wetlands poses a real danger to the entire community, and Mr. Palazzolo's title to his property never included the right to do harm to the community.”
Voters Register Mixed Feelings on Environment (National Wildlife, 02/01/01)
Phyllis McIntosh: "This is the most extreme ‘takings’ measure I’ve ever seen," says NWF attorney Glenn Sugameli. "It will be used to challenge all forms of zoning and land-use planning, and could have a chilling effect on state and local efforts to control sprawl and promote smart growth."
Disputes cloud Norton's nomination to lead Interior (Houston Chronicle, 01/18/01)
"property rights arguments often are used to justify development on and near federal lands, said Glenn Sugameli, an attorney ...
"Whoever is interior secretary will have enormous authority over public lands and resources and will make decisions that affect everyone's property rights, and we think it's critical to make them with an eye on the interests of everyone downstream, downwind and downhill, remembering the public's resources," he said."
Takings Bill Would Encourage Sprawl, Damage Habitats (National Wildlife, 08/01/00)
Phyllis McIntosh: The developers´ group behind the bill has boasted that it is "a hammer to the head" of local officials. But NWF attorney Glenn Sugameli says, "Premature, expensive federal litigation would bully communities into approving projects that harm neighboring property owners and the environment. "This bill is aimed at the heart of smart growth because control over destructive sprawl depends upon city, town and county planning laws," he adds.
Alaska Congressman Battles for Changes in Endangered Species Act (CNSNews.com, 07/06/00)
Glenn P. Sugameli, an attorney ... calls Young's legislation an attempt to establish "a new entitlement for people who have not lost any property rights according to every member of the Supreme Court who has ever sat..." "It's a claim of, 'we want to rewrite property rights, we want to create new property rights...at the expense of other people's property rights and the environment,"' Sugameli said. "These proposals...provide...an indirect [Trojan horse attack] through changing either the standards or the procedures that are used in a way that would tilt the playing field totally toward the developers and totally against the neighbors and the community."
Property Rights´ Advocates Dealt Major Blow by Court (National Wildlife, 02/01/00)
"This decision is a major setback for special interests that want to use legislation and litigation to make environmental regulations too expensive to enforce," says Glenn Sugameli
Forests, parks also at risk (Charleston Gazette [WV] , 12/26/99)
"Glen[n] Sugameli, a lawyer with the National Wildlife Federation, said OSM should make coal companies prevent subsidence damage, not just compensate citizens for it.
Sugameli also noted that the repair and compensation provisions apply to private homes and water supplies.
"What about schools, churches, graveyards, national parks and all of those areas?" Sugameli said.
"There are a lot of other places that just don't have those protections," he said.
"You should prevent the damage from happening. OSM has that authority, and they should exercise it.""
Propery rights bill gets House hearing (Congressional Green Sheets, 09/13/99)
The National Wildlife Federation believes the measure would not stand up to a legal challenge. "I think it's very clear, this bill is unconstitutional," says Glenn Sugameli, a lawyer with the group, and author of an extensive article about the legislation that was reprinted in The Urban Lawyer, as quarterly publication on state and lcoal government law. The Supreme Court has ruled in two cases that petitioners do not have a constitutional takings claim until they have been denied just compensation by the state courts, Sugameli said. . . . "There was a vast differnece in how the bill was portrayed and what it would do," Sugameli stated.
Homes and water supplies protected (Observer-Reporter [PA], 09/02/99)
Frank Yakopin Letter to the Editor: "The [appeals] court rejected an industry argument that requiring a mining company to compensate homeowners for damage would constitute a 'taking of the company's property rights.' The National Wildlife Federation, Glen[n] Sugameli and the people of the federation's staff should be congratulated for a job well done."
Oceans: House to act on long-awaited CZMA reauthorization (Environment & Energy (E & E) Daily, 08/05/99)
"Glenn Sugameli, senior counsel with the National Wildlife Federation, said the amendment would destroy coastal protections by prohibiting CZMA from restricting uses of private property, even if the restricted uses would pollute and destroy coastal resources."
Court Upholds Rights of Coalfield Homeowners (National Wildlife, 08/01/99)
"NWF is pleased that the court agreed with our position that fanciful industry takings claims are not a reason to gut critical protection for the true property rights involved--those of homeowners," says NWF attorney Glenn Sugameli, who argued the case on the side of the government.
Endangered Again (ABA Journal, 07/01/99)
Quotes Glenn P. Sugameli on fatally flawed "property rights/takings" bills that unjustifiably target the Endangered Species Act
Glenn P. Sugameli, The "Takings" Threat to People, Property, Zoning, and the Environment, (Urban Lawyer [ABA Section of State and Local Government Law] , 05/25/99)
This article discusses the first federal takings bill to be aimed at local governments and the fatal constitutional and practical problems inherent in the bill. The bill, which John Delaney and his law firm helped to draft on behalf of the National Home Builders Association (NAHB), would have undermined local zoning and federal environmental protection by radically altering the procedures that are necessary to decide takings claims. The article also describes the overwhelming opposition to the NAHB bill from local government, all three branches of the state and federal governments, and a wide variety of others.
Endangered Species/Property Rights: House panel to consider ESA-oriented property rights bill (Environment & Energy (E & E) Daily, 04/12/99)
""This bill is never going to be signed into law," said Glenn Sugameli, counsel with the National Wildlife Federation, explaining that when a similar bill was passed by the House as part of the Contract with America, President Clinton vowed to veto the legislation. . . . And Sugameli charged, "This is a Trojan horse attack on ESA. No court has ever agreed that ESA has resulted in a takings.""
THE takings ISSUE: Sportsmen take notice! The environmental battle of the century may be at hand. (Field & Stream, 04/01/99)
John McCoy: Glenn Sugameli, argued that landowners could employ [Sen. Phil] Gramm's bill to avoid compliance with game laws. "If you wanted to, you could open a game ranch and charge someone $100,000 to come and shoot bald eagles, and Gramm's bill would allow it to happen, because the Eagle Protection Act would be considered a 'takings,'" Sugameli said. ... Sugameli lamented the public's ignorance on takings-related matters. "We need to do a better job of informing the public," he said. "Anyone who truly supports the idea of property rights for average citizens should oppose takings bills." Sugameli said politicians, too, are only now becoming aware of the implciaitons of takings-related legislation. he predicted that as elected officials become more familiar with the issue's political potential, debate will heat up considerably.
Endangered Species: House shows polarized positions on ESA reform (Environment & Energy (E & E) Daily, 03/31/99)
"Glenn Sugameli, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation, retorted, "There's no need to further the Fifth Amendment. It's already in place and it's binding." He continued, "This is a Trojan horse attack on ESA. No court has ever agreed that ESA has resulted in a takings.""
Young introduces ESA-oriented property rights bill (Environment & Energy (E & E) Daily, 03/18/99)
"Glenn Sugameli, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation, retorted, "There's no need to further the Fifth Amendment. It's already in place and it's binding.
"This is a Trojan horse attack on ESA," he continued. "No court has ever agreed that ESA has resulted in a taking.""
Property Rights: Hopes dim for federal takings bill this year; focus on states (Environment & Energy (E & E) Daily, 01/19/99)
"Glenn Sugameli, counsel at the National Wildlife Federation, suggested that since the legislation advanced last year was "clearly repudiated" and had against it not only a veto threat from the White House but bipartisan opposition in the Senate, this Congress is not likely to be more receptive to the legislation.
Besides last year's legislative repudiation, Sugameli pointed out other, more recent, influences that may further diminish the momentum the legislation once had. For one, with over 200 ballot initiatives concerning land conservation and smart growth included in last November's national elections, the issue of how to control urbanization and local land use decisions was thrown into the spotlight. The number of initiatives voters had to mark a stance on - over 200 - and the number of ballots that were approved - over half - is indication, Sugameli and other environmental and conservation interest groups say, of a national trend toward communities and local and state governments more conscientiously preserving farm and environmentally sensitive lands or concentrating development, a trend that would be hampered under property rights legislative proposals. (See related story, p. 16.)
Sugameli and other conservation advocates say that the message sent during the elections was that Capitol Hill officials need to listen to state proposals and local initiatives and that state and local officials are not keen on losing their authority on land use decisions. "Governors came out having more clout than people on the Hill," Sugameli concluded."
NWF Members Help Protect Cities' Land-Use Planning (International Wildlife, 11/01/98)
The action was a major victory for NWF, which coordinated opposition to the bill by state and local government groups and conservation and religious organizations. "We prevailed despite an all-out lobbying blitz by the National Association of Home Build- ers," says NWF Attorney Glenn Sugameli. "More than 1,200 NWF members and supporters played a key role by urging their senators to oppose the bill."
If the measure had passed, developers opposed to local land-use planning could have taken disputes directly to federal court, bypassing local zoning appeals procedures and state courts. "They could have used the threat of premature and expensive federal lawsuits to blackmail cities, towns and counties into approving projects that imperil people's health, homes and environment," Sugameli says.
How a bill becomes a law (almost) (Orlando Sentinel [FL] , 10/01/98)
"Glenn Sugameli, counsel ... has been fighting bills like S. 2271 for eight years. "There is no real evidence that that is a problem," he says, "and certainly not a problem requiring this sort of radical, draconian bill." ... How costly? "Tens of thousands of dollars, at a minimum," Sugameli said, meaning that "even if [local governments] are confident that they could win the case, they may not be able to afford to win the case." Of course, the tab for such disputes would be left to taxpayers to pick up."
Takings Exception (Cont'd) (Washington Post, 08/18/98)
Glenn Sugameli Letter to the Editor: "It is the Aug. 3 letter by Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), "Taking Exception to Takings," that "includes several inaccurate assertions," not the July 12 editorial "Takings Exception,... S. 2271 and H.R. 1534, Rep. Gallegly's companion bill, were designed expressly to circumvent local land-use procedures and to ensure that developers do not have "to exhaust all viable options" before making a federal case out of a local zoning dispute."
Mchigan Court Affirms RIght To Protect Wetland (International Wildlife, 07/01/98)
"This is an importnat decision that brings Michigan back in line with the rest of the country in recognizing that property rights do not guarantee an owner the right to use every inch of his land at the expense of the environment," says NWF Attorney Glenn Sugameli.
Property rights legislation may threaten environmental protections. (BioScience, 06/01/98)
Glenn Sugameli, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation, agrees. "I'm convinced it's a disastrous, draconian bill that would have major impacts on wetlands, endangered species, and a lot of other resources that are important," he says.
House passes property rights bill after dramatic fight (Land Letter, 04/02/98)
Glenn Sugameli, counsel with the National Wildlife Federation, also argues that the bill would impede neighboring property owners [efforts] to protect their own property rights. "Affected neighbors trying to prevent a development that would harm their property would find it much more difficult and expensive to try to intervene in the Court of Fedral Claims than in their local district court." Sugameli also said, "H.R. 992 would invite anyone who is not satisfied with existing settled precedents in their local federal district and appellate courts to create massive uncertainty by filing claims in the Court of Federal Claims."
Property Rights: House passes property rights bill after dramatic fight to reject amendment (Environment & Energy (E & E) Daily, 03/16/98)
"Glenn Sugameli, counsel with the National Wildlife Federation, also argues that the bill would impede on property owners' ability to protect their own property rights. "Affected neighbors trying to prevent a development that would harm their property would find it much more difficult and expensive to try to intervene in the Court of Federal Claims than in their local district court." Sugameli also said, "H.R. 992 would invite anyone who is not satisfied with existing settled precedent in their local federal district and appellate courts to create massive uncertainty by filing claims in the Court of Federal Claims.""
Lessons in land use (Denver Post [CO] , 03/10/98)
"Conference topics include private property rights, transportation planning, financing of public facilities and housing reform. Also planned is a debate between private property rights attorney Roger Marzulla of Washington, D.C., and Glenn Sugameli ... The conference is at the University of Denver College of Law."
Senate Committee Passes Measure Aiding Developers In Property Disputes (Associated Press, 02/27/98)
"The one reason that this bill exists is the National Association of Home Builders," insists Glenn Sugameli, a lawyer ... . Environmentalists said that the bill is an indirect attempt to "run roughshod" over local environmental protection efforts after property rights advocates failed two year ago to win compensation for restrictions that protect wetlands and endangered species. Among others strongly opposed to the bill are the National Governors Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and 40 state attorneys general."
Transcript: Developers Sue (National Public Radio, 11/02/97)
NPR Weekend All Things Considered quoting "property rights expert" Glenn Sugameli on takings bill
Victories Mount in War Against Takings Laws (National Wildlife, 10/01/97)
"In effect, these bills tell corporations and developers that unless they are paid, they do not have to obey anti-pollution and other laws that protect our homes and children," says NWF counsel Glenn Sugameli. ... On the national level, NWF is fighting a revived version of a takings bill that failed in the last Congress. If passed, it would create a new multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded entitlement which would bust the budget and create a corporate right to pollute, Sugameli says.
Hatch introduces takings compensation bill: Utah senator's effort faces uphill battle (Endangered Species & Wetlands Report, 06/01/97)
"But Glenn Sugameli, counsel with the Nationa Wilidlife Federation, called the effort 'the last gasp of the radical, failed takings concept.' Sugameli said the bill is virtually identical to one introduced by Hatch in the last Congress, which garnered 34 sponsors. By contrast, only 10 other senators had signed on to Hatch's bill as of June 9. . . . Sugameli, however, said the bill 'would destroy the property rights of homeowners by giving developers a right to profit at the expense of the property, health and safety of their neighbors.' He called it more 'extreme than takings proposlas that were rejected by 60 percent of the voters in statewide referenda in Arizona in 1994 and Washington State in 1995.'"
Senate's July Work to Kick Off With Cloture Vote on Nominee (Congressional Quarterly, 05/08/97)
CQ Today: critics and even some backers of the "takings" bill say the legislative climate appears to have changed little since last fall, when Majority Leader Trent Lott, Miss., decided against bringing up Hatch's bill -- in part because it lacked enough votes to overcome a filibuster.
"Last year was the high-water mark ... and I don't see that really changing," said Glenn Sugameli of the National Wildlife Federation.
Clinton Pushes Protected-land Mining Changes . (Associated Press, 01/31/97)
"It's a deal with the devil," said ... Glenn Sugameli, who interpreted the twin announcements as saying "We'll protect you against strip mining but not against damage from underground mining."
GOVERNMENT REASSESSING COAL MINERAL RIGHTS (Associated Press, 01/30/97)
KATHERINE RIZZO: "Environmental groups cheered that proposal but decried a companion measure covering underground mining.
``It's a deal with the devil,'' said National Wildlife Federation lawyer Glenn Sugameli, who interpreted the twin announcements as saying ``We'll protect against strip mining but not against damage from underground mining.''"
PROPERTY RIGHTS LOBBY GROUPS GEAR UP FOR RENEWED EFFORT (Congressional Quarterly, 11/25/96)
CQ Today: Critics, including environmental groups and the National League of Cities, contend the legislation has little chance of clearing the Senate. They say the measure represents a thinly veiled attack on the environment that also could hurt local government flexibility on land use decisions and invite litigation.
"I don't see how it makes sense politically or in any other sense," said Glenn Sugameli of the National Wildlife Federation. "I don't think they had 50 votes last time, and they certainly don't have 60 now."
Defeat of Latest Takings Bill Is Temporary Gain (Salt Lake Tribune [UT], 07/30/96)
"Speaking at the Outdoor Writers Association of America conference in Duluth, Minn., National Wildlife Federation lawyer Glenn Sugameli, Washington, D.C., said takings bills are a reaction to laws that restrain inappropriate uses of private property.
"These laws were enacted to protect against threats to private property, people and public resources, from the Dust Bowl to Love Canal," he said. "Examples abound. Wetlands laws prevent pollution, flooding and loss of recreational and commercial fishing jobs. Soil-conservation laws prevent disastrous effects on land, water and surrounding development. Watershed-protection laws preserve fresh water sources. Takings bills favor profits at the expense of neighboring homeowners and the public, essentially reversing established law.""
BACKERS MODIFY PROPERTY RIGHTS BILL IN HOPES OF WINNING CLOTURE (Congressional Quarterly, 07/19/96)
CQ Today: Craig conceded that supporters so far lack the 60 votes they would need to cut off debate.
Critics are confident that the bill won't win any new converts, saying the changes are largely cosmetic and don't undo the damage the measure would cause. "This thing is just as draconian, just as extreme, just as much of a budget-buster," said Glenn Sugameli of the National Wildlife Federation.
FEDERAL `TAKINGS' LEGISLATION: PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PROPERTY WRONGS? ENVIRONMENT AND WILDLIFE ISSUES AT STAKE IN INTERPRETATION OF FIFTH AMENDMENT (Morning Call [PA], 06/23/96)
"Lisa Jaeger calls them "arguments about a fundamental liberty." Glenn Sugameli counters they're "reactions to conservation, environmental, zoning and other laws that restrain inappropriate uses of private property." Jaeger, a lawyer with the Washington D.C.-based Defenders of Property Rights and Sugameli, ... argued the growing controversy over property rights legislation last week during the 69th Annual Conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America, held here Sunday through Thursday on the shore of Lake Superior. . . . Sugameli countered that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause requires that just compensation be available through the courts where private property is taken for public use. However, today's growing "property rights movement" -- with more than 600 sympathetic groups across the country -- seeks to broaden the definition of "takings," he told the outdoor communicators."
DEBATE GIVES NEW TAKE ON CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY RIGHTS (Buffalo News [NY], 06/20/96)
"On Tuesday, the annual conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America heard a debate between the Defenders of Property Rights, the lobbying organization that has helped promote the legislation, and the National Wildlife Federation, which is against the bills. ... Glenn P. Sugamelli, the National Wildlife Federation counsel for conservation programs, documented other incidents, including a 1995 case where a West Virginia strip mine was threatening to undermine hundreds of homes and another strip-mining incident when the collapse of a coal company refuse pile that had dammed a stream took 125 lives and destroyed 1,000 homes. ... such laws, the conservation lawyer said, would hamstring federal agencies and cause them to look over their shoulders, fearing their budgets would be diminished by settlement claims. In effect, clean air or clean water regulations would be put on hold, along with the Endangered Species Act, he said. And with 24 states now espousing such laws, it could mean local zoning laws might be affected. ... "The Supreme Court ruled against them," Sugameli said. "They supported the concept that wildlife belongs to everyone and rejected the feudal concept that the landed aristocracy own and control all wildlife." Many of the assembled newspaper and magazine writers here are pretty conservative and against government spending, sloth and bureaucratic paper-shuffling. Yet many seemed reluctant to go along with the idea that property rights must always take precedence over saving a duck marsh, or a trout stream."
Takings Speculation: FUTURE OF KEY ENVIRONMENTAL BILLS UNCERTAIN IN WAKE OF DOLE RESIGNATION (Elena's Inbox, 05/16/96)
Email to Elena Kagan includes: :Glenn Sugameli, counsel to the National Wildlife Federation, told BNA May
15 that Dole's resignation would provide --reason and cover" for bill
proponents to back down from commitments to bring the measure to the Senate
He said more significant than the Dole resignation was what he viewed as
the retreat of House Republicans from the whole compensation issue.
Sugameli said he based his assessment on a statement of principles issued
by the House Republican Task Force May 15 that said that --private property
owners should be assured greater certainty regarding the use of their
property. They should also be assured due process to challenge any adverse
decisions and when their property rights are in question.""
Takings Liberties (ABA Journal, 03/01/96)
Glenn P. Sugameli published Letter on problems with Prof. James W. Ely, Jr.'s "A Breather on the Takings Clause"
A `More Extreme' Takings Bill (Washington Post, 12/03/95)
Glenn Sugameli Letter to the Editor: The Post report on voters' rejection by a 3 to 2 margin of a Washington state takings referendum got it backward.... Sen. Dole's takings bill is even more extreme, however, in extending this new entitlement to impacts on any property, including contract rights and other intangibles. The rejected Washington state referendum dealt only with limits on use of land.
Ref. 48 Defeat Has Louder Echoes -- A Property-Rights Stall Now In Congress, Too? (Seattle Times [WA] , 11/09/95)
"[O]pponents of such compensation said Referendum 48's defeat, coupled with equally overwhelming voter rejection of a measure in Arizona a year ago, could prompt Congress to step back. ... The two defeats are all the more impressive because the property-rights movement is widely perceived in Washington, D.C., as a Western phenomenon, said Glenn Sugameli, a lawyer ... ."
DOLE'S TAKINGS BILL COULD SUFFER FROM WASHINGTON STATE VOTE (Congressional Quarterly, 11/09/95)
CQ Today: Opponents of takings measures cheered the results. "It sends a clear message from the voters that takings is a radical idea that is going to bust the budget and hurt people and property," said Glenn Sugameli, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation.
MANY BUSINESSES CLAIM TAKINGS, BUT FEW SUCCEED (Congressional Quarterly, 06/30/95)
CQ Today: When the owner of a Southern California pancake house was charged three years ago with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, he claimed property rights as one of his defenses. Majid Zahedi argued that the law amounted to an unconstitutional "taking" of property because it would force him to tear out seating places to make restrooms accessible to customers in wheelchairs.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, U.S. District Judge John S. Rhoades in San Diego rejected the argument. "The mere loss of approximately 20 seating places surely will not deny Zahedi all economically viable use of his property," the judge wrote.
Zahedi may have failed in his claim, but opponents of expansive takings legislation cite the case as an example of the potential flood of claims that could result under some of the proposals pending in Congress. "We would be paying people not to pollute," says Glenn Sugameli, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation. "We would be paying people not to violate federal civil rights laws."
Taking Sides: Examining the Property Rights Debate (Herald [Bradenton, FL] , 06/18/95)
"This will destroy 25 years of environmental progress," said Glenn Sugameli, ..."Wetland development will destroy the property values of home owners in the surrounding area. Those wetlands are needed to absorb flood surges and release water over time. If we start over developing them other property owners will suffer." Sugameli is concerned that the House bill allows compensation even if only a portion of the land is affected. "Say you have a thousand acres and only one acre is regulated," he said. "The taxpayers will have to pay for that one acre and ignore the fact that is a minute portion. We should be looking at the entire picture. If a developer is not allowed to fill in and build on top of a pond, it may not hurt the value. Land with a view of a pond usually sells for more. It should all be judged on an individual basis. Where does this all end?"
Many Businesses Claim Takings, But Few Succeed (Congressional Quarterly, 06/16/95)
CQ Researcher by Kenneth Jost: "When the owner of a Southern California pancake house was charged three years ago with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, he claimed property rights as one of his defenses. Majid Zahedi argued that the law amounted to an unconstitutional “taking” of property because it would force him to tear out seating places to make restrooms accessible to customers in wheelchairs.... Zahedi may have failed in his claim, but opponents of expansive takings legislation cite the case as an example of the potential flood of claims that could result under some of the proposals pending in Congress. “We would be paying people not to pollute,” says Glenn Sugameli, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation. “We would be paying people not to violate federal civil rights laws.”"
2 hang back on payment for land use (Advocate [Baton Rouge, LA], 02/28/95)
"If, as expected, Tauzin re-introduces essentially the same property-rights bill he has proposed in the past "we will oppose it just as strongly as the Judiciary Committee bill," said NWF's Glenn Sugameli.
Both the Tauzin legislation and the Judiciary Committee bill hinder the government's ability to issue environment and public-safety regulations, said Sugameli, and both bills "have the same problems with cost, with bureaucracy, with red tape, with threat to the homeowner from flooding if a wetland is filled in and your house is downstream."
Something closer to what he called a real compromise may emerge from a group of moderate Republicans, Sugameli said."
Seeing red over green in the Contract (Washington Times, 01/22/95)
"In pursuing regulatory reform, "extremists are trying to take away the ability of Americans to act through their government to protect neighboring property owners and the public welfare," according to National Wildlife Federation attorney Glenn Sugameli."
Smith to take high post in House: Republican from San Antonio to direct immigration panel (Austin American-Statesman [TX] , 01/09/95)
""Under Smith's proposal, if the government prevents a development
because it would harm the house next door, it would not be the next-door
neighbor who would be compensated. It would be the owner whose development
the government did not allow,'' said Glenn Sugameli, an attorney with the
National Wildlife Federation who characterizes Smith's property rights bill
Initiatives: ENVIRONMENT // Arizona weighs property rights (USA Today, 10/26/94)
"Under pointed attack is a provision limiting agencies to actions "no greater than necessary" to protect health and safety, and only in cases of "real and substantial threats."
"That's crazy. That can mean agencies have to wait until the dead bodies roll in before they can act to protect health and safety," says Glenn Sugameli, a lawyer with the National Wildlife Federation."
Clause frames land-use debate: Fifth Amendment at center of property rights controversy (Austin American-Statesman [TX] , 10/15/94)
"Environmental, labor, consumer, health and other groups contend that
bills such as Gramm's are so broad that they would bankrupt the country and
undermine many seemingly unrelated values, such as health care, alcohol
controls and provisions for disabled people.
For example, a store that had to modify its entrance to accommodate
wheelchairs, as required by federal law, could claim a loss of value because
of the expense, said Glenn Sugameli, a lawyer for the National Wildlife
Federation. Even "dial-a-porn" companies that provide X-rated conversation
could seek compensation for the cost of complying with rules requiring
controls on access by children, he said."
A Question of Property Rights and Wrongs: Do Americans really want their neighbors to be able to do whatever they want with their land? (National Wildlife, 10/01/94)
Doug Harbrecht: "That's what 'property rights' has always meant for conservationists: protections for average Americans and their property," says National Wildlife Federation attorney Glenn Sugameli. . . . "Extremists are trying to take away the ability of Americans to act through their government to protect neighboring private-property owners and the public welfare," says NWF's Sugameli. . . . .In other words, says NWF attorney Sugameli, "Property ownership does not include the right to flood your neighbors." . . . . "I am convinced that there is no actual case of an American poster child for the property rights movement," says NWF's Sugameli. NWF has examined hundreds of such purported cases. "And every single case either falls apart or doesn't exist at all," he says.
REGULATION OPPONENTS WIN SKIRMISH (Cleveland Plain Dealer [OH], 07/24/94)
"This is an attempt to push the camel's nose into the tent," said National Wildlife Federation lawyer Glenn Sugameli. "It's the opening wedge for something much broader and much more dangerous."
Environmental regulations spark backlash (Ocala Star Banner [FL] , 03/22/94)
"The property owners bill of rights is like saying that i should be paid because I can't put a hazardous waste landfill in the backyard of my suburban property, and I can't put a strip joint in my front yard and an apartment tower in my side yard," said Glenn Sugameli, "Noone has the right to squueze the last penny from every inch of their property."
Takings Exception' (Cont'd) (Washington Post, 03/20/94)
Glenn Sugameli Letter to the Editor: "Epstein's agenda of mandating financial payments even when the Constitution does not authorize it would still have a major impact on the federal budget.
The March 8 letters from Richard A. Epstein and David J. Edmondson suffered from the same defects as Mr. Epstein's Feb. 23 op-ed article, "A Takings Exception" - they ignored the radical nature of the professor's beliefs and the extremist views of industry and congressional advocates of takings legislation. In his book, "Takings," Prof. Epstein argued that the New Deal is unconstitutional."
PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE MAKES COMMON GROUND (St. Louis Post-Dispatch [MO], 03/06/94)
"Glenn Sugameli, a lawyer in Washington for the National Wildlife Federation, asserts that Tauzin's latest effort is a drive to stall environmental protection.
As Sugameli and environmental advocates see it, this bill and others in Congress could tie up environmental rules in red tape and new studies and prevent governments from enforcing rules because of potential compensation to landowners.
"It is an extremely radical approach that would destroy protections for private property and jeopardize the health and safety of many Americans," he says."
Marshes and Money: Taking Uncle Sam to Court; Cover Story: The shifting ground of property rights. (costs of implementing federal regulations) (Insight on the News, 08/23/93)
"Environmentalists see [Chief Judge Loren] Smith as quietly altering the balance of power between the regulators and the regulated. They fear that the judge is, in the words of one lawyer, "pulling rabbits out of a hat for the radical right wing'" Glenn P Sugameli, counsel of the National Wildlife Federation [PHOTO], says, "If the approach Judge Smith takes prevails, it would impose such costs on the government that it could not reasonably control threats to private property and public health." ... Environmentalists want to hold this line, barring compensation except in rare cases of total confiscation as in Lucas's case. Regulations that greatly limit the use of property, but leave the owner with some marginal right, should be enough to deny compensation, in the eyes of some environmentalists. The "recreational value of land for hunting can defeat a taking" claim, the National Wildlife Federation's Sugameli argued in congressional hearings in May 1992. But the composition of the Supreme Court has changed since the Penn Central decision, and given the right case, the ruling may be over-turned. (In Loveladies Harbor, Smith laid the groundwork for such a ruling.) "Whatever is taken is compensable," Smith says, pointing out that if a distinction such as Sugameli's were applied literally, the government could bulldoze your kitchen and not pay compensation on the grounds that you weren't left homeless."
CASE CLOSED SETTLEMENT ENDS PROPERTY RIGHTS LAWSUIT (Chicago Tribune, 07/25/93)
"Glenn Sugameli said the entire incident has been "surrounded by sound and fury that signifies nothing." The kind of compensation Lucas received "applies only when there is a 100 percent wipeout of the value of 100 percent of the property," he said."
Whose Land is it Anyway? Cover story: Out to change the law of the land. (property rights movement) (Insight on the News, 05/02/93)
"Land rights activists fielded no professional lobbyists, but environmentalists pulled out all the stops. Halting the land rights act was hailed as a major environmentalist victory. State property rights efforts "come directly from the radical agenda of [Reagan Attorney General] Ed Meese," says Glenn Sugameli, counsel to the Public Lands and Energy Division of the National Wildlife Federation [PHOTO]. "Commercial interests were cynically exploiting property owners' concerns.""
PRIVATE PROPERTY ACT HAS A SINISTER SIDE (Deseret News [UT] , 02/05/93)
Glenn Sugameli ..., who has been tracking such bills, said, "It's part of a general movement across the country. These bills were introduced last year at least in 27 states, that we know of." ... Sugameli traces the movement to the waning days of the Ronald Reagan presidency. He quoted "Order and Law," the memoirs of the solicitor general at the time, Charles Fried.
Fried writes that then-Attorney General Edwin Meese had an aggressive and radical project in mind "to use the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment as a severe brake upon federal and state regulation of business and property.""
The State of Takings Law (C-SPAN Video Library, 10/28/92)
Glenn Sugameli and other judicial scholars met at a forum of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. Claims Court to discuss property and takings law, including claims against the United States government. Several panels focused on different aspects of takings law, including environmental regulation the effect of recent takings decisions by the courts, and the case Lucas v. South Carolina.
Claims Court Crusader: Chief Judge Smith Puts Property Rights Up Front (Legal Times, 08/17/92)
Tom Castleton: "'He's been getting a lot of publicity,' says Glenn Sugameli, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation, 'because his decisions are on the edge-- or beyond the edge.' . . . Sugameli of the National Wildlife Federation points out that Smith proudly said at a recent Federalist Society conference that his legal heroes were failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork and [Richard] Epstein. . . . Sugameli is appalled at Smith's admiration for hte scholar. 'Now, for ht eman who is chief judge is the United States Claims COurt to say that one of his heroes is Richard Epstein, who has the ultimate extreme view on what is a taking, and that view is that the boday of 20th-century legislation is a taking, is shocking,' Sugameli says. As a prime example of Smith's approach, Sugameli and others point to Loceladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States. . . . Sugameli says that in Loveladies Harbor, Smith chose not to guage the Clean Water ACt's effect of the entire 250 acres, 199 of which have been devleoped. . . . Sugameli, for instance, points out that Smith 'seems to be focusing very, very heavily on the private costs to the landowner and not adequately weighing the concerns of the public, adjacent landowners and others who are severely injured if development results in flooding or pollution.'"
THE GRASS IS LOOKING GREENER FOR LANDOWNERS (Business Week, 07/13/92)
Describes the Supreme Court's Lucas decision. "The ruling cheered environmentalists. 'It's not going to apply in the vast majority of cases,'" says Glenn P. Sugameli.
Beach ruling may affect La. wetlands (Advocate [Baton Rouge, LA], 07/05/92)
Joan McKinney: "Glenn Sugameli, a regulation expert ... said, "it really doesn't have any impact in the real world. There will be precious few cases when a regulation reduces property usage to zero . . . They didn't overturn any existing law . . . The Supreme Court rejected the extreme argument that there is no 'nuisance exception' under the Fifth Amedment. It retained the 'nuisance exception,' even when the regulation reduces the use of property to zero." "And, at least up to the point of denying all use of property, the state can come up with new rules for new environmental circumstances," he said."
Editorial: Balance restored (Daily Breeze [CA], 07/02/92)
"Glenn Sugameli, representing the National Wildlife Federation, noted that the court rejected 'the extreme argument that property owners must always be compensated whenever regulations designed to protect the public' affect property values."
High Court Backs Compensation for Loss of Land Rights (Los Angeles Times, 06/30/92)
Glenn Sugameli, ... said that he sees the ruling as "a major setback to the special interest groups that . . . fraudulently claim that they are wise users of natural resources. Not even a conservative court accepts the extreme argument that property owners must always be compensated whenever regulations designed to protect the public affect the use or value of property."
Lucas IV: Reaction From Enviros (Greenwire, 06/30/92)
National Wildlife Federation attorney Glenn Sugamelli [sic- Sugameli] "Though potentailly a narrow victory for Mr. Lucas, this ruling offers a major setback to the special interest groups that supported him and fraudulently claim that they are 'wise' users of natural resources."
'Just Compensation:' The little-known federal Claims Court is trying to slam the brakes on environmental and other regulations by applying the 5th Amendment dictate that payment be made when private property is taken for public use. (National Journal, 06/13/92)
W. John Moore: "'The decisions from Judge Loren Smith are extremely disturbing because they really do misinterpret existing law. They find takings where, in our opinion, none exist,' Glenn Sugameli, a lawyer with the National Wildlife Federaiton in Washington, added. . . . "But Sugameli on the National Wildlife Federation said it is too early for property rights avocates to declare victory. According to Sugameli and other takings experts, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appears ready to overturn at least one of the recent Claims Court decisions. And a recent procedural ruling by the appellate court has prompted the Justice Department to ask the Claims Court to reconsider another of its recent rulings, he added. . . . 'A trend that is disturbing may be righting itself, and that would be a welcome development,' Sugameli said."
Lawyers See Leeway in 'Takings' Ruling (Inside Energy, 04/20/92)
The 17-page opinion in Yee et al. c. City of Escondido, California is important for several reasons, Glenn Sugameli, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation, said. FIrst, in upholding the Escondido ordinance as a legitimate land use regulation, the court wrote that "[t]raditional zoning regulations can transfer wealth from those whose activities are prohibited to their neighbors; when a property owner is barred from mining coal on his land, for example, the value of his property may decline but the value of his neighbor's property may rise." "This statement strengthens the argument that there is no constitutional problem with VER narrowly defined. The court essentially cited it as an example of a zoning regulation," Sugameli said. The constitutionality of zoning regulations has repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court, he added. . . . "This ruling should show OSM that its concerns that there are constitutional problems with VER are not valid," Sugameli said. "The Supreme Court has indicated that their view of the issue is different from the hostile approach OSM is preparing to adopt."
Supreme Court Hears Pivotal Environmental Protection Case (Environment Week, 03/12/92)
"Glenn Sugameli, counsel to the National Wildlife Federation, said the Lucas case is much larger than beach development and protecting coastal resources, as evidenced by the 27 briefs filed in the case. "The scope of the parties that filed in the case makes it clear that the issue is not just about beach land development, [but] involves the full range of government regulations that protect [against] threats to public health, safety in the work environment, civil rights and the environment," Sugameli said. "Complaints have been raised that excessive [regulations] that inhibited a company's ability to gain a profit could be considered a taking," he added.
Taking on 'Takings' (National Journal, 03/07/92)
W. John Moore: "Executive Order 12630 remains controversial, especially among environmentalists. 'It's a disatrous idea,' Glenn Sugameli, a Naitonal Wildlife Federation lawyer, said, and is a cover for a radical agenda to block all kinds of federal and state regulations."
Editorial: The bulwark of liberty (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/23/91)
Said Glenn Sugameli, a lawyer ... in the National Journal: "From the perspective of anyone interested in government's ability to protect people's health and safety, it (the Lucas case) has to be a source of concern."
Plan could allow strip mining in parks (Ocala Star Banner [FL] , 09/02/91)
"Glenn Sugameli said the proposal would illegally strip the courts of the responsibility for deciding what constitutes 'taking' of private property, and would turn that responsibility over to bureaucrats who are 'not equipped to make those decisions. They are not experts in constitutional law.'"
ACTIVISTS FEAR EFFECTS OF STRIP-MINING LAW (Deseret News [UT] , 09/02/91)
Glenn Sugameli said the proposal would illegally strip the courts of the responsibility for deciding what constitutes "taking" of private property and would turn that responsibility over to bureaucrats, who are "not equipped to make those decisions. They are not experts in constitutional law."
REVIEW SET FOR MINING AT HISTORIC W. VA. SITE (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [PA], 01/14/91)
"WE Deegans and Glen[n] Sugameli told state Energy Commissioner Woody Wayland in a letter Friday that planners have taken a "myopic view of the historic ..."
'EXISTING RIGHTS' BATTLE HEATS UP (Lexington Herald-Leader [KY], 04/01/90)
Quotes Glenn Sugameli on unjustifiable claimed right to strip mine an area of the Wayne National Forest in Ohio