Sign up for CAC updates

A Record of Success

CAC builds on the decade-long record of accomplishments of Community Rights Counsel. Read more about CRC's accomplishments here.

Supreme Court Litigation:

• CRC was formed in 1998 to combat an increasingly successful effort by corporate special-interests to establish the Takings Clause as a barrier to environmental protections. CRC fought this Takings Project by explaining why constitutional text and history compelled a narrow reading of this provision.
• By helping secure Supreme Court victories in cases including Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Association (2002), Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003); and Lingle v. Chevron (2005), CRC stopped the Takings Project in its tracks and demonstrated that CAC’s text and history method can produce progressive victories, even with a conservative Supreme Court.
• CRC subsequently used the same method and produced similar results in other areas of constitutional law including the reach of the federal Commerce Clause (Raich v. Gonzales (2005), Rapanos v. United States (2006)) and standing (Massachusetts v. EPA (2007).
• CRC filed 16 Supreme Court amicus briefs and more than 30 briefs in lower courts. CRC became the voice of the state and local government community in environmental cases, representing every major association of state and local government officials before the U.S. Supreme Court.
• CRC’s briefs have been cited by Supreme Court Justices in two recent opinions and acclaimed by advocates and editorial writers. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger said before arguing the Brown case, “If I could tell the Supreme Court only one thing, I would tell them to read CRC’s brief.”

Junkets for Judges:

• In 1998 CRC discovered that the same corporations and special interests that were supporting a radical interpretation of the Takings Clause were also bankrolling expense paid junkets where federal judges were wined, dined, and told how and why they should strike down environmental safeguards.
• CRC’s investigative research, which included producing a database of more than 10,000 judicial trips, has been featured in hundreds of newspaper stories, dozens of editorials in national papers, segments on ABC News’ 20/20, Nightline, and World News Tonight, and more than ten broadcasts of National Public Radio.
• CRC’s work on the junkets issue has produced changes in the rules governing trips for every federal judge in America. In September 2006, the Judicial Conference required junket providers to post information about their funders, their speakers, and their programs on the internet; judges who go on junkets must disclose detailed information about the trip within 30 days. The American Bar Association has adopted similar disclosure rules in its model ethics code for state judges.
• A pending Senate bill that would raise federal judges’ pay includes a complete ban on junkets.

Judicial Nominations:

• In 2001, CRC released “Hostile Environment; How Activist Federal Judges Threaten Our Air, Water, and Land,” a report that explained how certain federal judges were being activist in ignoring text and history and striking down environmental safeguards. This report galvanized the environmental community around the environmental stakes in judicial confirmation fights.
• With Earthjustice, CRC formed and directed the Judging the Environment Project. CRC produced detailed reports on the environmental records of nominees to the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal, organized a coalition of more than 200 other environmental groups, and made environmental issues a frontline issue in many confirmation battles. In 2007, the confirmation of William Myers, a long-time lobbyist for the oil and gas industry, was stopped because of Myers’ hostility to environmental safeguards and his support for anti-environmental judicial activism.