Article Published on Hunting on National Park Service Lands

The current issue of the New York University Environmental Law Journal features a note by Jessica Almy, an associate at Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, entitled “Taking Aim at Hunting on National Park Service Lands.”  18 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 184 (2010).  The article, authored while Jessica was a law student, argues that hunting is contrary to the National Park Service’s conservation mandate and thus should only be allowed where the activity is authorized by Congress and will not result in the impairment of wildlife or natural resources.  The note is available online from the NYU Environmental Law Journal.

Summary Judgment Brief Filed In Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Critical Habitat Suit

On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, NRDC and others we recently filed for summary judgment in a suit seeking critical habitat protection for the highly imperiled Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow.  Although the Fish and Wildlife Service has long recognized that the particular habitat at issue – occupied habitat west of Shark River Slough in south Florida – is absolutely essential to the species’ survival and recovery, the agency inexplicably excluded the area in its most recent critical habitat decision.

The brief is attached.

Settlement Reached Over Coal-Fired Power Plant Financing Records

On behalf of the Sierra Club, we recently settled a Freedom of Information Act case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the USDA and the Rural Utilities Service, whereby the government provided numerous records previously withheld from public disclosure regarding federal financing and subsidizing of new coal-fired power plants in Texas and Kentucky.

Amicus Brief Filed in Supreme Court NEPA Case

On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Center for Biological Diversity, we have filed an amicus brief in a case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court raising significant questions concerning the standards and process for obtaining injunctive relief in cases arising under the National Environmental Policy Act.  A copy of the brief is here.

Challenge to FDA’s Delay On Non-animal testing petition

Today we filed a case in federal district court in D.C. against the Food and Drug Administration challenging its unreasonable delay in responding to a November 2007 rulemaking petition by a coalition of animal protection groups called “The Mandatory Alternatives (MAP) Coalition.”  The petition asks the FDA to promulgate regulations that would require manufacturers of drugs and medical devices to use alternative non-animal tests, when feasible, to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of their drugs and medical devices.  Animal tests, which costs millions of dollars, often do not produce valid or otherwise usable data, yet inflict excruciating pain and suffering on their animal subjects.   The requested regulation would bring the U.S. in line with the European Union which since 1986 has required the use of non-animal testing.  Read the Complaint. 

Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal Welcomes New Receptionist LeBaron Frost

Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal is pleased to announce that LeBaron Frost has joined the firm as our receptionist/secretary.  Bessie Smith, who had been the Firm receptionist/secretary for more than 15 years, has retired and we wish her all the best. Welcome aboard LeBaron.

Public Health Groups Ask The Supreme Court To Hear Tobacco Appeal

On behalf of six major public health organizations – Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network – we have filed a Petition for Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court in the long-running litigation brought by the Department of Justice over the cigarette companies’ violations of civil RICO.  In 2005, our clients were granted intervention to advocate for the most effective remedies to redress the companies’ misconduct.  Although in 2006 the trial court ruled that the companies engaged in a decades-long fraud concerning the health effects of smoking and the nature of nicotine, in May 2009 the D.C. Circuit concluded that the trial court has no authority under RICO to remedy this misconduct by requiring the companies to give up their unlawful profits, or fund programs to help addicted smokers quit smoking.  We, and the government, have asked the Supreme Court to accept the case to reverse this decision, and rule that the trial court has broad authority to impose appropriate remedies to address the effects of the tobacco companies’ fraud.  A copy of the Petition is here.