Law School

After law school, Professor Mank served as law clerk for Justice David M. Shea of the Connecticut Supreme Court. He later became associated with the Hartford, Conn., law firm of Murtha, Cullina, Righter and Pinney, where his emphasis was environmental law. In 1989, Professor Mank became an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut and held that position for two years before joining the College of Law faculty in 1991. He has authored many articles and book chapters on environmental justice, regulatory reform, and statutory interpretation. He has also worked with the City of Cincinnati on a number of environmental ordinances and implementation matters, including climate change, environmental justice, recycling, and air pollution issues.

Publications

Book Chapters

• Should State Corporate Law Define Successor Liability?: The Demise of CERCLA's Federal Common Law in William H. Rodgers, Jr., Environmental Law (West, 2nd ed., 2008 Supp.)
• Title VI and Executive Order 12,898 in The Law of Environmental Justice (ABA, 2d ed. 2008) (Michael B. Gerrard & Sheila Foster eds.)
• Civil Remedies in Global Climate Change and U.S. Law (Michael B. Gerrard, ed.) (2007)
• Standing and Remedies in Global Warming (ABA, 2007) (Michael B. Gerrard ed.)
• The Rights of Indigenous Peoples to a Healthy Environment and Use of National Resources Under International Human Rights Law in Effective Strategies for Protecting Human Rights: Economic Sanctions, Use of National Courts, and International Fora and Coercive Power (Ashgate, 2001) (David Barnhizer, ed.)
• Environmental Justice Litigation in Environmental Law Practice Guide (Michael B. Gerrard ed.) (Matthew Bender 1998)
• Public Participation (Chapter 31) and Other Remedial Issues (Chapter 25) in Brownfield's Law and Practice (Michael B. Gerrard ed.) (Matthew Bender 1998)

Articles, Essays & Book Reviews

• Summers v. Earth Island Institute Rejects Probabilistic Standing, but a "Realistic Threat" of Harm Is a Better Standing Test, 40 Envtl. L. ___ (2010)
• Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for Generations to Come?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009)
• Standing and Statistical Persons: Should Large Public Interest Organizations Have Greater Standing Rights than Individuals?, 36 Ecology L.Q. ___ (2009)
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA's New Standing Tests for States, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008)
• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 48 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007)
• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007)
• Can Plaintiffs Use Multinational Environmental Treaties as Customary International Law to Sue under the Alien Tort Statute?, 2007 Utah L. Rev. ___
• Implementing Rapanos—Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007)
• Title VI and the Warren County Protests, 1 Golden Gate Envtl. L. Rev. 73 (2007) (symposium)
• Prudential Standing and the Dormant Commerce Clause: Why the "Zone of Interests" Test Should Not Apply to Constitutional Cases, 48 Ariz. L. Rev. 23 (2006)
• Can Administrative Regulations Interpret Rights Enforceable under Section 1983? Why Chevron Deference Survives Sandoval and Gonzaga, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 843 (2005)
• A Scrivener's Error or Greater Protection of the Public: Does the EPA Have the Authority to Delist "Low-Risk" Sources of Carcinogens from Section 112's Maximum Available Control Technology Requirements?, 24 Va. Envtl. L.J. 75 (2005)
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. Law 1 (2005)
• Are Anti-Retaliation Regulations in Title VI or Title IX Enforceable in a Private Right of Action: Does Sandoval or Sullivan Control This Question?, 34 Seton Hall L. Rev. 47 (2004)
• Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004)
• The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003)
• Suing under § 1983: The Future after Gonzaga v. Doe, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 1417 (2003)
• Are Title VI's Disparate Impact Regulations Valid?, 71 U. Cin. L. Rev. 517 (2002) (symposium)
• Legal Context: Reading Statutes in Light of Prevailing Legal Precedent, 34 Ariz. St. L.J. 815 (2002)
• Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002)
• South Camden Citizens In Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: Will § 1983 Save Title VI Disparate Impact Suits?, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 10454 (2002)
• Proving an Environmental Justice Case: Determining an Appropriate Comparison Population, 20 Va. Envtl. L.J. 365 (2001)
• A Survey of Federal Agency Response to President Clinton's Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. 11133 (2001) (with Denis Binder, et al)
• Using § 1983 to Enforce Title VI's Section 602 Regulations, 49 U. Kan. L. Rev. 321 (2001)
• The Draft Title VI Recipient and Revised Investigation Guidances: Too Much Discretion for EPA and a More Difficult Standard for Complainants?, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 11144 (Envtl. L. Inst.) (Dec. 2000)
• Reforming State Brownfield Programs to Comply with Title VI, 24 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 115 (2000)
• Should State Corporate Law Define Successor Liability?: The Demise of CERCLA's Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000)
• Environmental Justice and Title VI: Making Recipient Agencies Justify Their Siting Decisions, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 787 (1999)
• Is There a Private Cause of Action Under EPA's Title VI Regulations?: The Need to Empower Environmental Justice Plaintiffs, 24 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (1999)
• The EPA's Project XL and Other Regulatory Reform Initiatives: The Need for Legislative Authorization, 25 Ecology L.Q. 1 (1998)
• Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky. L.J. 527 (1998)
• American Mining Congress v. Army Department: Ignoring Chevron and the Clean Water Act's Broad Purposes, 25 N. Ky. L. Rev. 51 (1997)
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231 (1996)
• Protecting the Environment for Future Generations: A Proposal for a "Republican" Superagency, 5 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 444 (1996)
• Environmental Justice and Discriminatory Siting: Risk-Based Representation and Equitable Compensation, 56 Ohio St. L.J. 329 (1995)
• What Comes after Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994)
• Superfund Contractors and Agency Capture, 2 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 34 (1993)
• Preventing Bhopal: "Dead Zones" and Toxic Death Risk Index Taxes, 53 Ohio St. L.J. 761 (1992)
• The Two-Headed Dragon of Siting and Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste Dumps: Can Economic Incentives or Mediation Slay the Monster?, 19 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 239 (1991)
• Rewarding Defendant Cooperation under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Judges vs. Prosecutors, 26 Crim. L. Bull. 399 (1990)

Presentations

• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA's New Standing Test for States, University of Louisville, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law (November 1, 2007)
• Continuing Legal Education, Evolving Climate Change Regulations: Developing Trends in Law and Litigation, The Digest of Environmental Law and the Legal Publishing Group of Strafford Publications (September 12, 2007)
• Continuing Legal Education, Evolving Climate Change Regulations: Developing Trends in Law and Litigation, The Digest of Environmental Law and the Legal Publishing Group of Strafford Publications (November 14, 2006)
• Environmental Justice and the Poor, Law Professors' Christian Fellowship Annual Conference, Catholic University, Columbus School of Law, Washington, D.C. (January 4, 2003)
• Environmental Justice and Air Permits, Community Conference on Air Pollution, Environmental Community Organization, Corryville Public Library, Cincinnati, Ohio (November 9, 2002)
• Environmental Justice: The Impact of Sandoval and South Camden on Title VI and Section 1983, Tulane Environmental Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana (March 8, 2002)
• Environmental Justice: The South Camden Case, University of Cincinnati Law Review and Moot Court, Cincinnati, Ohio (March 4, 2002)
• The Legal Aspects of Environmental Justice, City of Cincinnati, Environmental Advisory Council (November 28, 2001)
• The Demise of CERCLA's Federal Common Law and Corporate Successor Liability, Cincinnati Bar Association, Environmental Law Seminar (November 8, 2000)
• The Demise of CERCLA's Federal Common Law and Corporate Successor Liability, Corporate Law Symposium, University of Cincinnati (March 9, 2000)
• Title VI Litigation, Environmental Justice Symposium, College of Law, University of Cincinnati (April 23, 1999)
• The Case for Affirmative Action, Affirmative Action Debate, Northern Kentucky University (March 29, 1999)
• Endangered Species Symposium, College of Law, University of Cincinnati (April 17, 1998)
• Bridging the Gap Between Environmental Lawyers and Engineers or Scientists, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-University of Cincinnati College of Engineering Seminar Series (May 23, 1996)
• Implications of the Federal Budget Crisis on Environmental Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-University of Cincinnati College of Engineering Seminar Series (February 22, 1996)
• Environmental Compliance: A Short Course, University of Cincinnati College of Engineering (May 31—June 2, 1995)
• Environmental Implications of the North American Free Trade Agreement, University of Cincinnati College of Law, Environmental Law and International Law Societies (March 11, 1994)
• Preventing Bhopal: "Dead Zones" and Toxic Death Risk Index Taxes, 35th Annual Meeting, Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP), Philadelphia (October 29, 1993)
• Overview of Environmental Law, University of Cincinnati Department of Environmental Health, Graduate Seminar (February 3, 1993)
• Using Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques to Site Landfills, Workshop for Southwestern Ohio Solid Waste Management Districts, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, Institute for Environmental Studies (November 6, 1991)
• Composting Seminar, University of Cincinnati Department of Environmental Health (March 8, 1991)

Courses

• Administrative Law
• Environmental Law I
• Environmental Law II
• International Environmental Law

October 2009

Brad’s article, Summers v. Earth Island Institute Rejects Probabilistic Standing, But Laidlaw Still Leaves an Opening for Threatened Injuries, was accepted for publication in Environmental Law.

Brad’s article, Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), was cited by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company Inc., 2009 WL 2996729 (2d Cir. Sept. 21, 2009), which held that states had standing to bring public nuisance suits against public utility companies such as AEP or Duke Energy. The original three-judge panel included Sonia Sotomayor, but the decision was issued by the remaining two judges.

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Scott Schwartz, The Hapless Ecosystem: A Federalist Argument in Favor of an Ecosystem Approach to the Endangered Species Act, 95 Va. L. Rev. 1325 (2009); and Preston Carter, “If an (Endangered) Tree Falls in the Forest, and No One Is Around . . . .”: Resolving the Divergence between Standing Requirements and Congressional Intent in Environmental Legislation, 84 Notre Dame L. Rev. 2191 (2009).
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231 (1996), in Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction (Thomson-West, 2009 Supp.).
• Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009), in Benjamin I. Narodick, Winter v. National Resources Defense Council: Going into the Belly of the Whale of Preliminary Injunctions and Environmental Law, 15 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 332 (2009).

Summer 2009

Brad’s article, The Supreme Court’s New Public-Private Distinction under the Dormant Commerce Clause: Avoiding the Traditional versus Nontraditional Classification Trap, was accepted for publication in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. The ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice published an abridged version of his article, Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009).

Brad presented Summers Rejects Probabilistic Standing, But Laidlaw Still Leaves an Opening for Threatened Injuries as part of the 13th Annual UC Faculty Summer Scholarship Series. The City of Cincinnati’s Council adopted an Environmental Justice Ordinance, a project on which Brad has consulted. Brad was elected to the Board of Trustees of the Mill Creek Restoration Project.

Several of Brad’s publications were cited:

• The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003); Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007); Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007); Is There a Private Cause of Action Under EPA's Title VI Regulations?: The Need to Empower Environmental Justice Plaintiffs, 24 Colum. Envtl. L. Rev. 1 (1999); Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002); and Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2009 Supp.).
• Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky L.J. 527 (1998), in John F. Manning, Federalism and the Generality Problem in Constitutional Interpretation, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 2003 (2009); Ramaah Sadasivam, Oops, We Did it Again (Or Did We?): United States v. General Battery Corp. and Corporate Successor Liability under CERCLA, 42 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1649 (2009); and James J. Brudney & Corey Ditslear, The Warp and Woof of Statutory Interpretation: Comparing Supreme Court Approaches in Tax Law and Workplace Law, 58 Duke L.J. 1231 (2009).
• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Justin F. Marceau, Lifting the Haze of Baze: Lethal Injection, the Eighth Amendment, and Plurality Opinions, 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 159 (2009).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005); Protecting the Environment for Future Generations: A Proposal for a "Republican" Superagency, 5 NYU Envtl L.J. 444 (1996); and Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Robert A. Weinstock, Lorax State: Parens Patriae and the Provision of Public Goods, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 798 (2009).
• Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA’s Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000), in Ramaah Sadasivam, Oops, We Did it Again (Or Did We?): United States v. General Battery Corp. and Corporate Successor Liability under CERCLA, 42 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1649 (2009).
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231(1996), in Stephanie Tai, Uncertainty about Uncertainty: The Impact of Judicial Decisions on Assessing Scientific Uncertainty, 11 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 671 (2009).
• A Scrivener’s Error or Greater Protection of the Public: Does the EPA Have the Authority to Delist “Low-Risk” Sources of Carcinogens From Section 112's Maximum Available Control Technology Requirements?, 24 Va. Envtl. L.J. 75 (2005); and What Comes after Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in Alex Jackson, EPA's Fuzzy Bright Line Approach to Residual Risk, 36 Ecology L.Q. 439 (2009).
• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Kenton J. Skarin, Not All Violence Is Commerce: Noneconomic, Violent Criminal Activity, RICO, and Limitations on Congress under the Post Raich Commerce Clause, 13 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 187 (2009).
• Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI and Environment Justice, in The Law of Environmental Justice (ABA, 2d ed. 2008) (Michael B. Gerrard & Sheila Foster eds.), in Shelley Ross Saxer, Banishment of Sex Offenders: Liberty, Protectionism, Justice, and Alternatives, 86 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1397 (2009).

June 2009

Brad consulted with the City Solicitor’s Office on the drafting an the environmental justice ordinance for the City of Cincinnati. The City Council’s Health & Environment Committee approved the ordinance on May 27th. City Council will vote on it on June 3rd.

Several of Brad’s publications were cited:

• Environmental Justice and Title VI: Making Recipient Agencies Justify Their Siting Decisions, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 787 (1999); The Draft Title VI Recipient and Revised Investigation Guidances: Too Much Discretion for EPA and a More Difficult Standard for Complainants?, 30 Envl L. Rep. 11144 (Envl L. Inst.) (Dec. 2000); and South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: Will Section 1983 Save Title VI Disparate Impact Suits?, 32 Envtl L. Rep. 10454 (April 2002), in James T. O'Reilly & Caroline Broun, RCRA and Superfund: A Practice Guide (Thomson-West, 3d ed. 2009 Supp.).
• Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky L.J. 527 (1998), in Thomas A. Bishop, The Death and Reincarnation of Plain Meaning in Connecticut: A Case Study, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 825 (2009).

May 2009

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231 (1996), in Alexander Volokh, Choosing Interpretive Methods: A Positive Theory of Judges and Everyone Else, The Legal Workshop, Apr. 20, 2009.
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in N.C. ex rel. Cooper v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 593 F. Supp. 2d 812 (W.D.N.C. 2009).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Megha Shah, Grassroots Enforcement of EISA: The Need for a Citizen Suit Provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 488 (2009).
• What Comes After Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in William H. Rodgers, Environmental Law (West 2008 Supp.)

April 2009

Brad published Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1 (2009). Two of his articles were cited:

• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in William J. Cantrell, Cleaning up the Mess: United Haulers, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and Transaction Costs Economics, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 149 (2009).
• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Michael L. Eber, When the Dissent Creates the Law: Cross-cutting Majorities and the Prediction Model of Precedent, 58 Emory L.J. 207 (2008).

March 2009

Two of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Michael L. Eber, When the Dissent Creates the Law: Cross-cutting Majorities and the Prediction Model of Precedent, 58 Emory L.J. 207 (2008).
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Randall S. Abate, Massachusetts v. EPA and the Future of Environmental Standing in Climate Change Litigation and Beyond, 33 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 121 (2008).

February 2009

Brad’s article, After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), was cited in Noelle Formosa, Ganging up on RICO: Narrowing Gonzales v. Raich to Preserve the Significance of the Jurisdictional Element as a Constitutional Limitation in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 135 (2008).

January 2009

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Thane Rehn, RICO and the Commerce Clause: A Reconsideration of the Scope of Federal Criminal Law, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 1991 (2008).
• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in Brannon P. Denning, Reconstructing the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine, 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 417 (2008).
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in North Carolina v. Tennessee Valley Authority, No.1:06-cv-00020-LHT (W.D. North Carolina, Jan. 13, 2009).
• Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. ___ (2009), in Kimberly N. Brown, Justiciable Generalized Grievances, 68 Md. L. Rev. 221 (2008).

December 2008

Several of Brad’s articles were cited:

• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231 (1996), in Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction (Thomson-West, 2008 Supp.).
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Christie Henke, Giving States More to Stand On: Why Special Solicitude Should Not Be Necessary, 35 Ecology L.Q. 385 (2008).
• Suing Under § 1983: The Future after Gonzaga v. Doe, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 1417 (2003), in Rosalie Berger Levinson, Misinterpreting “Sounds of Silence”: Why Courts Should Not “Imply” Congressional Preclusion of § 1983 Constitutional Claims, 77 Fordham L. Rev. 775 (2008).
• Superfund Contractors and Agency Capture, 2 N.Y.U. Envtl L.J. 34 (1993), in Sara Clark, In the Shadow of the Fourth Circuit: Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 35 Ecology L.Q. 143 (2008).
• http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/staev13&collection=journals&id=285, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994) and Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA’s Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000), in William H. Rodgers, Jr., Environmental Law (West, 2nd ed., 2008 Supp.)

November 2008

Mayor Mallory appointed Brad to the Green Cincinnati Steering Committee. Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Environmental Justice and Title VI: Making Recipient Agencies Justify Their Siting Decisions, 73 Tul. L. Rev. 787 (1999); The Draft Title VI Recipient and Revised Investigation Guidances: Too Much Discretion for EPA and a More Difficult Standard for Complainants?, 30 Envl L. Rep. 11144 (Envl L. Inst.) (Dec. 2000); and South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: Will Section 1983 Save Title VI Disparate Impact Suits?, 32 Envtl L. Rep. 10454 (April 2002), in James T. O'Reilly & Caroline Broun, RCRA and Superfund: A Practice Guide (Thomson West, 3d ed., 2008 Supp.).
• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007); and After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Daniel A. Farber, Climate Change, Federalism, and the Constitution, 50 Ariz. L. Rev. 879 (2008).
• Reforming State Brownfield Programs to Comply with Title VI, 24 Harv. Envtl L. Rev. 115 (2000), in James A. Kushner, Urban Neighborhood Regeneration and the Phases of Community Evolution after World War II in the United States, 41 Ind. L. Rev. 575 (2008).
• Should States Have Greater Standing Rights than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA's New Standing Test for States, 49 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008), in Gillian E. Metzger, Administrative Law as the New Federalism, 57 Duke L.J. 2023 (2008).

October 2008

Brad's article, Standing and Statistical Persons: Should Large Public Interest Organizations Have Greater Standing Rights than Individuals?, was accepted for publication in the Ecology Law Quarterly.

Summer 2008

Brad presented Standing and Statistical Persons: Should Large Public Interest Organizations Have Greater Standing Rights Than Individuals? as part of the 12th Annual UC Faculty Summer Scholarship Series.

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in Kenneth L. Karst, From Carbone to United Haulers: The Advocates' Tales, 2007 Sup. Ct. Rev. 237.
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231(1996), in John F. Manning, Lessons from a Nondelegation Canon, 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1541 (2008); Jason J. Czarnezki, An Empirical Investigation of Judicial Decisionmaking, Statutory Interpretation, and the Chevron Doctrine in Environmental Law, 79 U. Colo. L. Rev. 767 (2008); and Alexander Volokh, Choosing Interpretive Methods: A Positive Theory of Judges and Everyone Else, 83 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 769 (2008).
• A Scrivener's Error or Greater Protection of the Public: Does the EPA Have the Authority to Delist “Low-Risk” Sources of Carcinogens From Section 112's Maximum Available Control Technology Requirements?, 24 Va. Envtl. L.J. 75 (2005), in Bradley C. Karkkainen, Bottlenecks and Baselines: Tackling Information Deficits in Environmental Regulation, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1409 (2008).
• Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA's Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000), in William H. Rodgers, Environmental Law (West, 2008 Supp.).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Shi-Ling Hsu, A Realistic Evaluation of Climate Change Litigation Through the Lens of a Hypothetical Lawsuit, 79 U. Colo. L. Rev. 701 (2008).
• Suing Under § 1983: The Future after Gonzaga v. Doe, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 1417 (2003), in Jon Donenberg, Medicaid and Beneficiary Enforcement: Maintaining State Compliance with Federal Availability Requirements, 117 Yale L.J. 1498 (2008).
• What Comes After Technology: Using an "Exceptions Process" to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in Thomas O. McGarity, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Migrating Hot Spots, and the Prospect of Data-driven Regulation of Complex Industrial Complexes, 86 Tex. L. Rev. 1445 (2008); and NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

June 2008

Brad published:

• Can Plaintiffs Use Multinational Environmental Treaties as Customary International Law to Sue Under the Alien Tort Statute?, 2007 Utah L. Rev. 1085 (2007)
• Title VI and Environment Justice, and Executive Order 12,898, in The Law of Environmental Justice (Michael B. Gerrard & Sheila Foster, eds.) (ABA, 2d ed. 2008).

Brad's article, Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), was cited in Daniel A. Crane, Antitrust Antifederalism, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2008).

May 2008

Brad published Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA's New Standing Test for States, 49 William & Mary L. Rev. 1701 (2008). He posted Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn? on SSRN.

Brad serves as a member of the City of Cincinnati Climate Change Steering Committee, which issued its final report to City Council.

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in David B. Edwards, Out of the Mouth of States: Deference to State Action Finding Effect in Federal Law, 63 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 429 (2008).
• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007), in Daniel A. Crane, Antitrust Antifederalism, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2008).
• The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003), in Augusta Wilson, Of Ponds and Pot: How Rapanos Ignored Raich and the Potential Role for Cooperative Federalism, 17 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 453 (2008).

April 2008

Brad's article, Standing and Future Generations: Does Massachusetts v. EPA Open Standing for the Unborn?, was accepted for publication in the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law.

Several of Brad's publications were cited:

• After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007), in Frank D'Angelo, Turf Wars: Street Gangs and the Outer Limits of RICO's 'Affecting Commerce' Requirement, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 2075 (2008).
• The Draft Title VI Recipient and Revised Investigation Guidances: Too Much Discretion for EPA and a More Difficult Standard for Complainants?, 30 Envl. L. Rep. 11144 (Envl. L. Inst.) (Dec. 2000), and Executive Order 12,898, in The Law of Environmental Justice (Michael B. Gerrard & Sheila Foster eds., ABA, 2d ed. 2008), in Matthew D. Adler, Risk Equity: A New Proposal, 32 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 1 (2008).
• Environmental Justice and Discriminatory Siting: Risk-Based Representation and Equitable Compensation, 56 Ohio St. L. J. 329 (1995), in Noah D. Hall, Political Externalities, Federalism, and a Proposal for an Interstate Environmental Impact Assessment Policy, 32 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 49 (2008).
• Public Participation in the Cleanup and Redevelopment Process, in Brownfield's Law and Practice (Michael B. Gerrard ed., Matthew Bender 1998), and Reforming State Brownfield Programs to Comply with Title VI, 24 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 115 (2000), in Oni N. Harton, Indiana's Brownfields Initiatives: A Vehicle for Pursuing Environmental Justice or Just Blowing Smoke?, 41 Ind. L. Rev. 215 (2008).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Jonathan Remy Nash, Standing and the Precautionary Principle, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 494 (2008).

February 2008

Brad was appointed as representative of the City's Environmental Advisory Council to Mayor Mallory's Steering Committee on Climate Change, which is developing a scheme to reduce the City of Cincinnati's emissions of greenhouse gases.

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Civil Remedies, in Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, 183 (Michael B. Gerrard ed. 2007), in Erin Overturf, Book Review, 8 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 74 (2007) (reviewing Global Climate Change and U.S. Law (Michael B. Gerrard, ed.. 2007)).
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231(1996), in Courtney Covington, Rapanos v. United States: Evaluating the Efficacy of Textualism in Interpreting Environmental Laws, 34 Ecology L.Q. 801 (2007).
• Rewarding Defendant Cooperation under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Judges vs. Prosecutors, 26 Criminal L. Bull. 399 (1990), in F. Lee Bailey and Kenneth J. Fishman, Handling Narcotic and Drug Cases (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2007 Supp.).
• Superfund Contractors and Agency Capture, 2 N.Y.U. Envtl L.J. 34 (1993), in Reid Mullen, Statutory Complexity Disguises Agency Capture in Citizens Coal Council v. EPA, 34 Ecology L.Q. 927 (2007).

December 2007

Brad published Title VI and the Warren County Protests, 1 Golden Gate Envtl. L. Rev. 73 (2007). He presented Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA's New Standing Test for States at Louisville.

Two of Brad's articles were cited:

• Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007), in Michael C. Blumm & Sherry L. Bosse, Justice Kennedy and the Environment: Property, States' Rights, and a Persistent Search for Nexus, 82 Wash. L. Rev. 667 (2007).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Timothy C. Hodits, The Fatal Flaw of Standing: A Proposal for an Article 1 Tribunal for Environmental Claims, 84 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1907 (2006).

November 2007

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species Under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004), in Adrian Vermeule, Common Law Constitutionalism and the Limits of Reason, 107 Colum. L. Rev. 1482 (2007).
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231(1996), in Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction (Thomson West, 2007 Supp.).
• Legal Context: Reading Statutes in Light of Prevailing Legal Precedent, 34 Ariz. St. L.J. 815 (2002), in James D. Fry, Coercion, Causation, and the Fictional Elements of Indirect State Responsibility, 40 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 611 (2007).

October 2007

Brad's article, Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA's New Standing Test for States, was accepted for publication in the William & Mary Law Review. The article was featured on Larry Solum's Legal Theory Blog.

Brad participated in an online CLE program on Evolving Climate Change Regulations: Developing Trends in Law and Litigation sponsored by The Digest of Environmental Law and the Legal Publishing Group of Strafford Publications.

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Should State Corporate Law Define Success or Liability? The Demise of CERCLA's Federal Common Law, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1157 (2000), in Marsh v. Rosenbloom, No. 05-0514-cv (Lead), 2007 WL 2416543 (2nd Cir., August 28, 2007).
• Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky L.J.l 527 (1998), in David S. Rubenstein, Putting the Immigration Rule of Lenity in its Proper Place: A Tool of Last Resort after Chevron, 59 Admin. L. Rev. 479 (2007).
• Civil Remedies, in Global Climate Change and U.S. Law 183 (Michael B. Gerrard ed. 2007), in Christina Ross, Evan Mills, & Sean B. Hecht, Limiting Liability in the Greenhouse: Insurance Risk-management Strategies in the Context of Global Climate Change, 26 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 251 (2007).
• The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003); Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007); Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007); Is There a Private Cause of Action under EPA's Title VI Regulations?: The Need to Empower Environmental Justice Plaintiffs, 24 Colum. Envtl. L. Rev. 1 (1999); Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002); and Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004), in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2007 Supp.).

Summer 2007

Brad published After Gonzales v. Raich: Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional under the Commerce Clause?, 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 375 (2007).

Brad presented Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens? as part of the 11th Annual UC Faculty Summer Scholarship Series. He completed the article and submitted it to law reviews.

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007); Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004); Implementing Rapanos–Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007); The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003); Protecting Intrastate Threatened Species: Does the Endangered Species Act Encroach on Traditional State Authority and Exceed the Outer Limits of the Commerce Clause?, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 723 (2002); in Linda A. Malone, Environmental Regulation of Land Use (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2007 Supp.)
• Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1231 (1996); and Textualism's Selective Canons of Statutory Construction: Reinvigorating Individual Liberties, Legislative Authority and Deference to Executive Agencies, 86 Ky. L.J. 527 (1998), in Meredith Abernathy, Running on Empty: Will Exxon Mobil Cause a Breakdown for Chevron and the Administrative State?, 64 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 583 (2007).
• Is There a Private Cause of Action under EPA's Title VI Regulations?: The Need to Empower Environmental Justice Plaintiffs, 24 Colum. Envtl L. Rev. 1 (1999), in Daniel A. Farber, Disaster Law and Inequality, 25 Law & Ineq. 297 (Summer 2007).
• A Scrivener's Error or Greater Protection of the Public: Does the EPA Have the Authority to Delist “Low-Risk” Sources of Carcinogens From Section 112's Maximum Available Control Technology Requirements?, 24 Va. Envtl. L.J. 75 (2005); and What Comes After Technology: Using an “Exceptions Process” to Improve Residual Risk Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants, 13 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 263 (1994), in Victor B. Flatt, Gasping for Breath: The Administrative Flaws of Federal Hazardous Air Pollution Regulation and What We Can Learn from the States, 34 Ecology L.Q. 107 (2007).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Eric Shaffner, Repudiation and Regret: Is the United States Sitting out the Kyoto Protocol to its Economic Detriment?, 37 Envtl. L. 441 (2007).
• Using Section 1983 to Enforce Title VI's Section 602 Regulations, 49 Kan. L. Rev. 321 (2001); and South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: Will Section 1983 Save Title VI Disparate Impact Suits?, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 10454 (April 2002), in Andrew Spitser, School Reconstitution under No Child Left Behind: Why School Officials Should Think Twice, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1339 (2007).

June 2007

Brad published:

• Are Public Facilities Different from Private Ones?: Adopting a New Standard of Review for the Dormant Commerce Clause, 60 SMU L. Rev. 157 (2007).
• Implementing Rapanos-Will Justice Kennedy's Significant Nexus Test Provide a Workable Standard for Lower Courts, Regulators, and Developers?, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 291 (2007).

Two of Brad's articles were cited:

• Suing under § 1983: The Future after Gonzaga v. Doe, 39 Hous. L. Rev. 1417 (2003), in Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz, Discarded Deference: Judicial Independence in Informal Agency Guidance, 74 Tenn. L. Rev. 1 (2007).
• Superfund Contractors and Agency Capture, 2 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 34 (1993), in Joseph A. Colquitt, Rethinking Judicial Nominating Commissions: Independence, Accountability, and Public Support, 34 Fordham Urb. L.J. 73 (2007).

Brad was quoted in Paul Webster, Is It Time to Hand Global Warming to the Lawyers?, Toronto Star, May 3 2007, at D3.

May 2007

As Chair of the City of Cincinnati's Environmental Advisory Council, Brad participated in the interview process for hiring a new Environmental Quality Manager for the City.

Two of Brad's articles were cited:

• Can Administrative Regulations Interpret Rights Enforceable under Section 1983?: Why Chevron Deference Survives Sandoval and Gonzaga, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 843 (2005), in Nina A. Mendelson, Regulatory Beneficiaries and Informal Agency Policymaking, 92 Cornell L. Rev. 397 (2007).
• Standing and Global Warming: Is Injury to All Injury to None?, 35 Envtl. L. 1 (2005), in Troy L. Payne, Cartesian Eco-femdarkanism: She Comes from the Earth, Therefore We Are, 37 Envtl. L. 202 (2007).

April 2007

Brad's article, Can Plaintiffs Use Multinational Environmental Treaties as Customary International Law to Sue Under the Alien Tort Statute?, was accepted for publication in the Utah Law Review.

March 2007

Brad's article, Rewarding Defendant Cooperation under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Judges vs. Prosecutors, 26 Crim. L. Bull. 399 (1990), was cited in F. Lee Bailey & Kenneth J. Fishman, Handling Narcotic and Drug Cases (LexisNexis, 2007 Supp.).

January 2008

Brad published Title VI and the Warren County Protests, 1 Golden Gate Envtl. L. Rev. ___ (2007).

Several of Brad's articles were cited:

• Can Congress Regulate Intrastate Endangered Species under the Commerce Clause?, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 923 (2004), in Mollie Lee, Environmental Economics: A Market Failure Approach to the Commerce Clause, 116 Yale L.J. 456 (2006).
• The Murky Future of the Clean Water Act after SWANCC: Using a Hydrological Connection Approach to Saving the Clean Water Act, 30 Ecology L.Q. 811 (2003), in Tova Wolking, Four Years after SWANCC; Regaining Ground in Federal Wetlands Protection, 33 Ecology L.Q. 933 (2006).
• Reforming State Brownfield Programs to Comply with Title VI, 24 Harv. Envtl L. Rev. 115 (2000), in Matthew D. Fortney, Devolving Control over Mildly Contaminated Property: The Local Cleanup Program, 100 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1863 (2006).

Please see Faculty News Archives for earlier issues.

Awards

• 2004 Harold C. Schott Scholarship Award
• 2001 Goldman Prize for Excellence in Teaching