Mar 22023

The Enforcement Angle: DOJ’s Environment & Natural Resources Division

Justin A. Savage and Nicole E. Noëlliste
, ,

The United States has an intricate system of laws, regulations, policies, and programs to respond to environmental and public health concerns. Enforcement is vital to that system’s effectiveness. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD) is tasked with enforcing the United States’ civil and criminal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and hazardous waste laws. Their mission also involves the protection of the Nation’s natural resources and handling cases relating to tribal rights and resources.

In the latest episode of the Environmental Law Institute’s People Places Planet Podcast series, “The Enforcement Angle,” Sidley’s Justin Savage, Partner and the Global Co-Leader of the Environmental practice, and Nicole Noëlliste, a managing associate in the Environmental practice, talk with the ENRD’s Assistant Attorney General, Todd Kim and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Kate Konschnik about the department’s enforcement priorities and corporate compliance guidance.

This episode is part of the series, “The Enforcement Angle,” where Sidley partners discuss state and federal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations with senior enforcement officials and thought leaders on environmental enforcement in the United States and globally. The featured guests offer their insights into the challenging environmental issues facing corporations today. View all the series episodes here.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.

Justin A. Savage

Washington, D.C.

jsavage@sidley.com

Nicole E. Noëlliste

Washington, D.C.

nnoelliste@sidley.com

You might also like
EPA Publishes First-Of-Its-Kind Framework for Considering Cumulative Impacts Across Agency Actions

On November 21, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published Notice of a newly developed draft framework intended to provide all EPA programs with a shared reference point for determining when and how to analyze or consider cumulative impacts—defined broadly to include the totality of exposures to combinations of environmental stressors and their effects on health and quality-of-life outcomes.  Keeping pace with the Biden administration EPA’s environmental justice drive, key goals of the Interim Framework for Advancing Consideration of Cumulative Impacts include empowering EPA to (1) more fully and accurately characterize the realities communities face, (2) pinpoint the levers of decision making and identify opportunities for interventions that improve health and quality of life while advancing equity, and (3) increase meaningful engagement, improve transparency, and center actions on improving health and environmental conditions in communities.

U.S. EPA Announces Fourth Update to Environmental Justice Mapping Tool: EJSCREEN 2.3

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) announced a fourth update to its environmental justice (EJ) mapping and screening tool, EJSCREEN, under the Biden administration. EPA describes the tool as “a starting point for agency considerations of environmental justice” and generally uses the tool to identify areas that may have higher environmental burdens and inform several Agency functions, including permitting, enforcement, outreach, and compliance.

Jarkesy’s Potential Implications for EPA Administrative Proceedings

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided SEC v. Jarkesy,[1] holding that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleges a defendant has violated securities antifraud provisions and seeks civil penalties, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in federal court under the Seventh Amendment. The ruling restricts the SEC’s use of its own in-house administrative tribunal with its own administrative law judges (ALJs), which the SEC has historically used to pursue antifraud claims. While the Court’s ruling focuses on the SEC, the principles underlying the decision may be applied more broadly to restrict the ability of other federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to pursue civil penalties via their own administrative proceedings.