EXPERIENCE

Mr. Bryson joins Holland & Hart's Washington D.C. office after more than 30 years as an appellate litigator for the Federal government. Nearly 25 of those years were with the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice. Mr. Bryson subsequently founded The Bryson Group PLLC with Nancy Bryson.

As a senior appellate attorney with the Department of Justice, he was responsible for a wide range of environmental and natural resource cases involving the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Federal Aviation Act (FAA), as well as issues arising from the management and use of the National Forest System, the National Park System, Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and from Federal Indian law. Early in his career, Mr. Bryson served as an appellate litigator in the Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of Labor, drafting briefs and arguing cases under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and other labor statutes. He has argued over 100 appeals in the Federal courts of appeals, appearing in every circuit, and drafted the Federal government's brief on the merits in numerous cases in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Bryson is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia.  He is also admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court and the bars of the United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the First Circuit, the Second Circuit, the Fourth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit.

RELEVENT CASES

BP America Production Co. V. Burton, 127 S.Ct. 638 (2006).  The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a Minerals Management Service order to pay additional royalties under Mineral Leasing Act.  The Court held that such administrative orders are not subject to the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2415 for actions by the United States for damages founded on a contract.

United States v. Manning, 2008 WL 2120512 (9th Cir. 2008).  The 9th Circuit affirmed a district court decision striking down Washington State's Cleanup Priority Act, which sought to impose standards and limitations on the clean up of mixed radioactive waste at the Department of Energy's Hanford facility.  The court ruled that the Cleanup Priority Act was preempted by the Federal Atomic Energy Act.

Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 508 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2007).  The 11th Circuit affirmed a district court decision approving the issuance by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of a regional general permit under Section 404(e) of the CWA.  The permit allowed discharges under specified conditions into wetlands for suburban development in a 48,000-acre area of the Florida panhandle.  The court held that the Corps of Engineers reasonably concluded individual permits were not required because authorized activities were similar in nature and would cause only minimal environmental effects.

Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Kempthome, 457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2006).  The 9th Circuit affirmed a district court decision rejecting challenges under NEPA and the ESA to the Bureau of Land Management's sale of oil and gas leases in the Northwest Planning Area of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.  The court held that because specific locations for leasing and development are not known in advance, BLM reasonably relied on a projected oil development scenario to assess potential environmental effects.

City of Shoreacres v. Waterworth, 420 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2005).  The 5th Circuit upheld a district court decision rejecting challenges under the NEPA and the CWA to an Army Corps of Engineers permit for a container ship terminal in Galveston Bay.  The court upheld the Corps' determination under the CWA that there were no practicable alternative sites for the terminal and the Corp's analysis of alternatives under NEPA.

Amoco Production Co. v. Watson, 410 F.3d 722 (D.C. Cir. 2005).  The D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court decision approving the Mineral Management Service's interpretation of the Mineral Leasing Act's requirement that royalties be calculated on the "amount or value of production removed or sold from the lease." The court held that the agency reasonably required lessees to add to the gross proceeds the costs of removing carbon dioxide in order to place natural gas in "marketable condition."

Little Bay Lobster Co., Inc. v. Evans, 352 F.3d 462 (1st Cir. 2003).  The 1st Circuit affirmed a district court decision rejecting challenges to regulation implementing a lobster fishery management plan adopted under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act.  The court held that any failure of the National Marine Fisheries Service to consult with the fishery management council was harmless error and that the regulations satisfied the national standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Karuk Tribe of California v. Ammon, 209 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  The Federal Circuit affirmed a Court of Federal Claims decision rejecting a claim by the Karuk Tribe of California that the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act effected a Fifth Amendment taking of the tribe's interest in the Hoopa Valley Indian reservation.  The court ruled that the tribe did not have a compensable property interest in the reservation. 

U.S. V. Olin Corp., 107 F.3d 1506 (11th Cir. 1997).  The 11th Circuit reversed a district court decision declaring CERCLA unconstitutional.  The court held that CERCLA was valid under the Commerce Clause. 

Laguna Gatuna, Inc. v. Browner, 58 F.3d 564 (10th Cir. 1995).  The 10th Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing a challenge to a compliance order issued by the Environmental Protection Act under the CWA.  The court held that the statute precludes judicial review of EPA orders directing the cessation of discharges into regulated waterbodies.

Salmon River Concerned Citizens v. Robertson, 32 F.3d 1346 (9th Cir. 1994).  The 9th Circuit affirmed a district court decision upholding the U.S. Forest Service's programmatic environmental impact statement for the use of herbicides in timber management in California, Oregon and Nevada.  The court held that the Forest Service reasonable relied on a risk assessment to evaluate cumulative effects, risks of inert ingredients and risk to hypersensitive individuals.

U.S. v. Buckley, 934 F.2d 84 (6th Cir. 1991).  The 6th Circuit affirmed a conviction under the CAA and CERCLA for knowingly releasing asbestos during demolition of a building and failing to report the release.  The court held that the statutes required the government to prove only that the defendant was aware that he had released asbestos, not that he was aware of the requirements of the law.

State of Nevada v. Watkins, 914 F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1990).  The 9th Circuit rejected constitutional challenges to the 1987 amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.  The court held that the statute did not violate the Property Clause, the Federal Enclave Clause, the Equal Footing Doctrine, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Tenth Amendment and the Port Preference Clause.

Monsanto Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 753 F.2d 649 (8th Cir. 1985).  The 8th Circuit reversed an injunction preventing the EPA from processing an application for a pesticide registration under FIFRA until the agency disclosed confidential business information to competitor of the applicant.  The court held that the district court had improperly modified a consent decree between EPA and the competitor under which the competitor waived any due process right to disclosure of information during the application process.

American Textile Mfrs. Institute, Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981).  The Supreme Court upheld an occupational safety and health standard protecting workers from exposure to cotton dust generated in textile manufacturing.  The court held that the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not require an OSHA standard to meet a cost-benefit test.

EDUCATION

Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1975)
- Editor, Georgetown University Law Review

Columbia University (B.A., 1968)