Karen Cullinane, a partner in Goldberg Segalla’s Manhattan office, authored an article about an ongoing U.S. Supreme Court case that was published in Law360.

The article, entitled “In SF Water Case, Justices Signal How Loper May Be Applied,” examines the possible broad effects of San Francisco v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – a case that originated when the city and county of San Francisco sued the EPA regarding perceived unfairness arising from the Clean Water Act.

San Francisco is arguing that existing laws made the city responsible for a greater share of water pollution than it should be, saying the city’s older sewer system creates overflows into the Pacific Ocean during heavy rainfall.

Aside from the San Francisco-centric ramifications of this case, Karen explained the larger implications, noting “this is the first case addressing the limits of agency regulatory autonomy following the court’s decimation last term of the Chevron deference doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.”

“In Loper Bright, the court reversed long-standing precedent to hold that federal courts must exercise independent judgment in deciding whether a federal agency has acted within its statutory authority, rather than defer to an agency’s statutory interpretation,” Karen said in the article. “Now, relying on the animating principle of Loper Bright, which slayed the ghost of an already weakened Chevron deference doctrine, San Francisco is essentially asking the Supreme Court to override the EPA’s interpretation and implementation of the Clean Water Act on the basis that the EPA did not numerically define limits on the city’s ability to allow polluted discharge into the Pacific Ocean.”

Regardless of the outcome and specificity to San Francisco, the Karen argues the result of this case will carry an incredibly important national application in administrative law across federal agencies.

“If San Francisco convinces the court of its argument, the EPA could be deprived of a regular vehicle through which it attempts to reduce water pollution — thereby making it more difficult for regulators to issue and enforce NPDES permits,” she said. “…if the justices’ questioning during oral argument were any kind of clairvoyant spirit guide to how the court will decide in its eventual written opinion, it seems that the court would prefer that the ghost of Chevron stays dead.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE (SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED)

MORE ABOUT KAREN CULLINANE:

Karen focuses her practice on complex asbestos litigation, toxic tort matters, mass torts, product liability cases, and general commercial litigation. Karen represents national and international entities including chemical, manufacturing, and mining companies. Her legal experience includes successful precedent-setting motion practice ranging from precluding evidence and dismissing cases on dispositive motions to obtaining directed verdicts on punitive damages.

With a practice spanning pre-trial discovery, jury selection, trials, post-trial briefings, and appellate advocacy, Karen has a detail-oriented approach to litigation but takes a global and comprehensive view of defense strategy. She works to choose and develop consensus-based tactics and approaches to defense, and to resolve immediate legal needs with an eye on minimizing legal spending and achieving each client’s long-term business goals.