Insights

Kirsten L. Nathanson, a Washington, D.C.-based Environment & Natural Resources partner, shares her perspective on the significance of recent U.S. Supreme Court case rulings during a panel hosted by the George Mason University School of Law's Law and Economics Center. Nathanson observed that in a 5-4 vote, the justices said EPA's estimated $9.6 billion/year of costs and $4-6 million/year of benefits from the regulation was a gap that was too big to ignore. "This was the first time the court required consideration of costs when Congress was silent," she said. Panelists discussed and examined precedent set by decisions in cases such as Michigan v. EPA, Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, and King v. Burwell. 

Washington, D.C.-based partner and steering committee member of the Environment & Natural Resources Group, Kirsten L. Nathanson, discusses a challenge to a federal rule cutting toxic emissions from power plants, which is one of the issues facing the Supreme Court this term. The federal rule in question limits toxic pollution, such as mercury, from coal- and oil-fired power plants, and is being appealed but 23 states and industry groups. Nathanson argues that, "The regulated community believes it was completely irrational and inappropriate for EPA to ignore the high cost," adding, "we will see if the Supreme Court latches onto it."

Washington, D.C.-based Environment & Natural Resources Group partner and steering committee member, Kirsten L. Nathanson, speaks with Law360 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions last term upholding much of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's cross-state air pollution and greenhouse gas regulations. Nathanson notes that while this year's term doesn't have as many environment-specific cases, the non-environment cases of Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association and Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association would have an impact across federal agencies including the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and others. "The key issue in the case involves an agency's ability to change its mind — and to change its mind on the interpretation of its own regulations, and to do so without having to go through notice and comment," Nathanson said.

Washington, D.C.-based partner in Crowell & Moring's Environment & Natural Resources Group and member of the group's steering committee, Kirsten L. Nathanson, discusses how Environmental Protection Agency cases faired in the Supreme Court's recent term. As mixed feelings arise, Nathanson chalked the past term up as a win for the EPA stating the agency's victory in the EPA v. EME Homer case that resurrected the EPA's regulation of air pollution crossing state borders.

Crowell & Moring Chairman Kent Gardiner and Washington, D.C.-based partner Kirsten Nathanson and counsel Astor Heaven are interviewed by The Washington Post regarding the firm's Sponsorship initiative. The program, which is the first law firm initiative of its kind in the country, connects partners with young lawyers to fully develop their talents and enhance their careers. Gardiner told the Post, "If you enhance the diversity and perspectives and ways of thinking about a problem based on different life experiences, different approaches, you create more opportunity for innovation."

Kirsten L. Nathanson, a Washington, D.C.-based partner in the firm's Environment, Energy & Resources Group, shares her perspective on the upcoming U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision on the state of Kentucky's proposed water-quality standard for selenium. The article notes that the deadline for the agency to make a decision on Kentucky's plan has already passed, but the EPA has said it has not yet concluded its review. It is anticipated that there will be litigation over the agency's decision. Nathanson remarks, "I would have a hard time seeing this not end up in the courts in one form or another. There's a lot of money at stake and there's been so much energy put into this issue by all sides. I can't imagine EPA's approval or rejection would be the final word."