Professors Margulies and Goldstein File Amicus Briefs in Important Terrorism and Environmental Cases
One way to evaluate the quality of a law school’s faculty is to note how often they are sought out for their expertise in important cases. Just last week, the work of Professor Peter Margulies on an amicus brief was cited in a path breaking terrorism case, while Associate Professor Jared Goldstein weighed in with an amicus on an important environmental case heard by the United States Supreme Court.
The issue in Boim v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (7th Cir., en banc) was whether an Israeli killed in Israel in an attack organized and carried out by agents of Hamas could recover under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act from charities that allegedly bankrolled Hamas. This law allows recovery in U.S. courts for victim who can prove injury “by reason of an act of international terrorism,” and the specific issue was how close the link had to be between the donor and the terrorist act. The court, in an opinion by celebrated law and economics scholar Judge Richard Posner, made it easier to sue those who aid and abet terrorism, ruling in effect that providing cash to terrorists is as dangerous as providing a car bomb. The majority held that plaintiffs could prove causation by showing that defendants provided funds to an organization that engaged in ongoing terrorist acts. Defendants who contributed funds knowing that the organization engaged in terrorism would possess the state of mind necessary to establish liability. To support its ruling, the court cited sources mentioned in the amicus brief on the connection between violent and putatively “non-violent” activities of integrated terrorist groups such as Hamas. Click here for the link to the opinion, and you will see cites to the amicus brief that Professor Margulies co-authored (with the leading firm Motley Rice).
Prof. Goldstein was asked to be “counsel of record” and co-author of a brief in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeepers, Inc., on behalf a distinguished group of Environmental Law Professors from a range of top schools, including Cal-Berkeley, Emory, and Texas. The case involves interpretation of the Clean Water Act, which seeks to control the harms caused by the water intake structures used by power plants to cool water. Withdrawing water from rivers for cooling can draw in fish and other aquatic organisms and cause significant environmental harm. The Clean Water Act tries to minimize those harms by requiring that cooling water intake structures be based upon the “best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” The Environmental Protection Agency, supported by industry, argues that it should weigh the costs of technology against the environmental benefits in deciding which technology is the “best . . . available.” Environmental groups disagree, arguing that cost-benefit analysis is not allowed by the statute. Instead, they argue that industry must use the available technology that most reduces environmental harms, without attempting to determine whether the value of reducing those harms is worth the compliance costs. Click here to read Professor Goldstein’s brief.
