Jennifer Scheller Neumann

Texas v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 78 F.4th 827 (5th Cir. 2023) (Supreme Court merits decision pending)

Helped develop successful government petition for certiorari, which was granted on two questions: whether courts can review an issue not raised before the Commission and whether the Commission may authorize temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel away from the reactor site where it was generated.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024)

Supervised litigation that resulted in landmark administrative law decision that overruled 40-year-old precedent (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)).  Under Loper Bright, courts no longer defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute, but do defer to agency fact-finding and policy judgments and afford limited respect to certain agency legal interpretations.

Appalachian Voices v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 78 F.4th 71 (4th Cir. 2023)

Received favorable decision in complex set of petitions for review challenging federal authorizations for the Mountain Valley Pipeline; court of appeals ultimately upheld a statute that took away the power of the courts to review the authorizations
 

Driftless Area Land Conservancy v. Rural Utilities Service, 74 F.4th 489 (7th Cir. 2023)

Seventh Circuit agreed with the government that the district court had improperly opined on the lawfulness of a potential land exchange that the agency had not yet approved for an electric transmission line to support renewable energy generation. 
 

Sackett v. EPA, 598 U.S. 651, (2023)

Managed the government’s litigation in the Ninth Circuit and was part of the litigation strategy team in the Supreme Court. The resulting decision fundamentally changed the scope of the Clean Water Act’s applicability to wetlands.
 

Blackstone Headwaters Coalition, Inc. v. Gallo Builders, Inc., 32 F.4th 99 (1st Cir. 2022)

En banc court agreed with U.S. amicus brief that longstanding circuit precedent improperly limited Clean Water Act citizen suits.
 

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 590 U.S. 165 (2020)

Part of the briefing and strategy team that filed petition- and merits-stage amicus briefs in the Supreme Court addressing whether discharges to groundwater that reach a water of the United States should be regulated under the Clean Water Act. The Court ruled that the Clean Water Act covers an indirect discharge to a covered waterbody, but only if the discharge is the “functional equivalent” of a direct discharge.
 

United States v. P.H. Glatfelter Co., 768 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2014) (briefing team only)

Obtained decision affirming EPA’s selected remedy at the complex Fox River Superfund Site in Wisconsin and affirming the liability and lack of divisibility defense of one appellant; court of appeals remanded for additional consideration of another appellant’s divisibility defense and vacated permanent injunction.
 

Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 698 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2012)

Obtained denials of three emergency requests for stay pending review and responded to five petitions for review raising multiple challenges under the Natural Gas Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and National Historic Preservation Act to the Ruby Pipeline Project; obtained a favorable result on all but the Endangered Species Act arguments.
 

Sierra Forest Legacy v. United States Forest Service 646 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2011) (and related cases)

Obtained partially favorable appellate decisions in cases challenging comprehensive amendments to the forest plans for 11 National Forests in the Sierra Nevada region. Negotiated favorable settlement with environmental groups after decision, ending a decade of litigation over the amendments.
 

O’Reilly v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 477 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2007)

Successfully obtained reversal of order requiring the agency to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, establishing favorable precedent on the ability of agencies to consider mitigation when deciding if a project has a significant environmental impact.