(1) Did the Arizona Supreme Court err by determining that 40 C.F.R § 122.29(b)’s new source analysis is satisfied by merely finding a “material connection” between a newly constructed source of polluted discharge and an existing source rather than considering whether the new source operationally depends on the existing source? (2) Did the Arizona Supreme Court err by determining that new source performance standards for copper mines in 40 C.F.R. § 440.104 do not “independently apply” to Resolution’s new mine?
Who really decides what statutes say? Most Americans think that special interests play an outsized role in our lawmaking processes. Yet empirical studies have produced little evidence that special interests get everything, or even most of, what they ask for from Congress. This article takes an innovative new approach in tackling the difficult question of how advocates influence legislation. It presents the first, comprehensive empirical study of how advocates influence the law through amendments in the legislative process. The article analyzes an original dataset of 2137 witnesses testifying at referral hearings on 108 Indian related bills in the 97th and 106th Congresses. The analysis identifies amendments as an important yet previously undocumented way in which advocates influence legislation. It uncovers a rarely observed relationship between legislative advocates and sitting members of Congress. Comparison of advocates’ testimony on bills to amendments proposed by committee members reveals similar and even identical language, providing compelling evidence that groups persuaded legislators to introduce amendments valued by the group. The analysis also demonstrates how advocate influence at the hearing and mark up stage of the legislative process frequently shapes the law by dramatically increasing the likelihood of legislative enactment. These findings reveal an important mechanism that advocates can use to change the law. Further, they challenge prevailing narratives about power by demonstrating how underrepresented groups can leverage the legislative process in their law reform efforts.
Non-DOJ applicants will receive notification of their application status by: October 7, 2024
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provides minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and placement in foster and adoptive homes. Tribal and State attorneys play important roles in advancing the protections of ICWA. This webinar is the fourth in a multipart series concerning the application of ICWA in State courts and the role of Tribal courts in cases involving ICWA. Kate Fort, a nationally recognized expert on ICWA will discuss the implications of ICWA in representing Tribes and States in child welfare cases. Topics will include transfer, state agreements, and many other important topics. CLE has been requested.
You must be logged in to post a comment.