John Cruden Interview 6

198
Oral History of John C. Cruden, Esq.
This interview was conducted on behalf of the Oral History Project of The Historical
Society District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewer is Tracy H. Scarrow, and the interviewee is
John C. Cruden. The interview took place on January 5, 2023 at Beveridge & Diamond, 1900 N
St NW, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. This is the sixth and final interview.
MS. SCARROW: We are jumping back in talking about cases that you were involved with
during your last stint at DOJ. We talked about the VW case and the BP
case, so next I thought you could talk a bit about the Clean Power Plan
litigation. What was that case about?
MR. CRUDEN: The Clean Power Plan regulation was one of the most significant
greenhouse gas reduction rules promulgated during the Obama
administration. The rule was the administration’s effort to provide a
regulatory framework to reduce emissions from coal fired power plants. I
led and supervised the voluminous defense of the rule, worked extensively
with the leadership of EPA, coordinated with the White House, and
supervised exceptional attorneys from the Environmental Defense Section
who drafted all of the United States’ pleadings in the case.
MS. SCARROW: What was the rule about and why was it so controversial?
MR. CRUDEN: The Clean Power Plan was a creative and far-reaching effort led by the
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy to try to
regulate the emission of greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants,
which at that stage were the United States’ largest source of greenhouses
gases. EPA went through an arduous series of public meetings and
conferences to develop regulations (dubbed “The Clean Power Plan”) that
the EPA believed would result in a significant reduction of greenhouse199
gases from the planet. Each state was assigned specific goals for reducing
carbon emissions. Their goals could be accomplished however the state
saw fit, but EPA could step in if the state refused to submit a carbon
reduction plan. If every state met its target, the Clean Air Plan was
projected to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by 32% by 2030
and to achieve significant health benefits due to reduced air pollution.
The final version of the Plan was unveiled by President Obama in
August 2015. Opponents immediately declared that the Plan was illegal.
Only ten days after EPA announced the final rule, twenty-seven states
petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit for an emergency stay, arguing that the scope of the rule’s
“building blocks” for action went beyond the authority of the Clean Air
Act. Eighteen states filed in support of the rule.
MS. SCARROW: What happened with the stay requests?
MR. CRUDEN: We prevailed in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but in February
2016, in one of the most well-known examples of the Supreme Court’s
“shadow docket,” the Court stayed implementation of the Clean Power
Plan pending judicial review. To put it mildly, we were shocked by the
stay. It was truly unprecedented and unfortunate. This turned out to be the
last vote of Justice Scalia.
MS. SCARROW: Did the case get argued on the merits?
MR. CRUDEN: Yes. Surprisingly, the D.C. Circuit decided sua sponte to hear the case en
banc, but without the Chief Judge of the Court, Merrick B. Garland, who200
recused himself, as he was at that time President Obama’s U.S. Supreme
Court nominee. We prepared for oral argument as if it was a Supreme
Court argument and held multiple rigorous moot courts that included
senior lawyers from the DOJ office of the Solicitor General, EPA, and
FERC. In September of 2006, the en banc court heard over 7 hours of oral
argument. At the end of the argument by many excellent oral advocates, I
was firmly convinced that the court would uphold the rule.
MS. SCARROW: What happened?
MR. CRUDEN: Unfortunately, the D.C. Circuit did not rule before the end of the
administration, and the Trump administration predictably repealed the
Clean Power Plan and replaced it with what they called the “Affordable
Clean Energy Rule,” which was not nearly as significant in reducing
greenhouse gases as the Clean Power Plan. Much later, the rule became
the subject of a Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA.
MS. SCARROW: Who argued the cases you were supervising?
MR. CRUDEN: The case was argued by exceptional attorneys: Eric Hostettler, Amanda
Berman, and Norm Rave. There were many good attorneys in the case, but
I thought the DOJ team was by far the best.
MS. SCARROW: This case is probably an excellent example of how slowly these cases
make their way through the courts. After the administration changed, you
weren’t involved, but can you tell us what’s happened since then?
MR. CRUDEN: As I mentioned, the Plan was stayed by the Supreme Court and before the
D.C. Circuit issued its ruling on the merits, the Trump administration201
withdrew the Plan and replaced it with their own less rigorous Affordable
Clean Energy rule. The Trump Affordable Clean Energy rule was also
challenged; and just before that administration changed, the D.C. Circuit
ruled 2-1 invalidating it. That decision was then appealed to the Supreme
Court. In June 2022, relying on a new rendition of the Major Case doctrine
(a substantive canon of construction that bars agencies from resolving
questions of major economic and political significance without clear
statutory authorization), the Supreme Court held in West Virginia v EPA
that EPA lacked the authority to create the Clean Power Plan. 27
Nevertheless, EPA retained the authority and responsibility to
regulate power plant emissions. In early 2024 EPA finalized rules
establishing greenhouse gas standards for power plants under the Clean
Air Act for existing coal-fired power plants and rescinded the Affordable
Clean Energy rule. In May 2024, EPA published its new rule in the
Federal Register. And on the same day, states and industry filed petitions
in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the rule. The case is still
pending at this time.
MS. SCARROW: Can you describe your interaction with the White House on the Clean
Power Plan?
MR. CRUDEN: Unlike enforcement cases where the Obama White House gave that
responsibility solely to the Department of Justice, the White House was
27 West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022).202
involved in the defense of key regulations, as they were the
implementation of key policy decisions. From time to time, the White
House counsel would ask me for briefings on cases. This certainly was
true in the Clean Power Plan litigation. At one key moment, the White
House Chief Counsel called me to ask something about the Clean Power
Plan, and I told him what we were doing. This inquiry frustrated me
because his call came at a time when we were facing multiple deadlines in
a challenging schedule. The White House counsel paused a little bit, then
said something like, “Well, it probably irritates you that I make all these
calls to you, and you’d probably like me to leave you alone so you can do
your job.” I agreed, albeit, perhaps, too enthusiastically. Then he said,
“Well, let me tell you something, John. Every time the President of the
United States asks me what you are doing, I’m going to ask you what you
are doing.” Hard to disagree.
MS. SCARROW: You have been a proponent of environmental justice. Can you tell me
about your role in both creating and then supervising the government’s
efforts on environmental justice?
MR. CRUDEN: Environmental justice has been a centerpiece of my professional work for
many years. There is little question that pollution falls disproportionately
on those who lack resources. My own view is that environmental justice
gives a voice to many who are impacted by environmental problems, but
have no real access to assistance, and their voice is unheard.203
I recall Dean Schmoke, then Mayor of Baltimore, speaking at the
Annual D.C. Bar Conference in which I was announced as the new
President. His thesis was that environmental justice was the new civil
right.
While at DOJ I established an Environmental Justice Task Force,
and then created a special counsel, Cynthia Ferguson, to supervise and
enhance our environmental justice matters. She was aided by a wellrespected friend of mine from my military time in Europe, Quentin Pair,
also an environmental justice advocate in ENRD. The Task Force
reviewed cases for environmental justice implications and then monitored
those cases. During my tenure as Assistant Attorney General we met with
environmental justice groups to get a better understanding of their needs
and to benefit from their advice. I also served on the White House Task
Force on Environmental Justice. In that capacity, my recommendation to
broaden our outreach of the environmental justice effort to include Native
American Tribes was accepted. While I understand supplemental
environmental projects (SEP) are controversial, and banned during the
first Trump administration, I am a firm advocate of such environmental
projects.
MS. SCARROW: Can you talk about several of the more famous cases with environmental
justice issues, for example DOJ’s suit against New Orleans and your work
crafting the settlement?204
MR. CRUDEN: We previously discussed the settlement with the city of New Orleans,
which led to the complete upgrade of the city’s antiquated sewer system.
That settlement also created the first environmental justice Supplemental
Environmental Project, called a SEP. The New Orleans SEP is one of the
best examples of environmental justice playing a role in the ultimate
settlement. The illegal sewer overflows in that case flowed to a number of
locations, including the nearby Lake Pontchartrain. One victim of the
pollution was Lincoln Beach, a 17-acre beach and amusement park that
was created in the 1950s as a segregated beach. Over a period of years,
probably due in no small way to the pollution coming from the city, the
beach was closed. When we negotiated the final consent decree to resolve
the city’s Clean Water Act violations, we included a Supplemental
Environmental Project that required the city to make Lincoln Beach
“fishable and swimmable,” for all the citizens of New Orleans. This is a
classic example of promoting and obtaining environmental improvement
in impoverished areas with a history of neglect.
MS. SCARROW: I understand there was another environmental justice case here in D.C.
where DOJ brought suit against the District for historic sewer overflow
problems.
MR. CRUDEN: Yes. The D.C. case was similar to what had happened in New Orleans.
As in many older cities, about one-third of the District has a combined
sewer system. The system overflowed during heavy rain when the mixture
of sewage and stormwater exceeded the capacity of the sewer pipes. The205
overflow, which contained bacteria and trash that can be harmful to
waterways and the aquatic life they support, discharged in three locations:
the Potomac River, Rock Creek, and the Anacostia River. The Anacostia
River, in particular, is an area that is used by minority communities all
along the water for fishing and recreating. Pollution clearly has an
adverse impact on the community.
DOJ sued the District of Columbia, handled ably by Nancy
Flickinger, a superb attorney, and I led the negotiations with the Deputy
Mayor that ultimately resolved the case. In the original settlement, D.C.
agreed to build an underground tunnel capable of holding 30 million
gallons of combined stormwater and sewage under the Potomac River.
The tunnel, which should be completed by 2030, will use gravity to allow
the collected combined sewage to flow to the Blue Plains Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment. The Anacostia River solution
required construction of a 13-mile-long underground tunnel for combined
stormwater and sewage storage during rains. That project is already
reducing overflows by over 90 percent.
Originally, one underground tunnel was to be constructed to divert
the overflow from Rock Creek. Later, while I was Assistant Attorney
General, we negotiated an amendment to the consent decree to eliminate
the underground tunnel for Rock Creek. Instead, stormwater runoff will be
managed through innovative green infrastructure such as rain gardens,
porous pavement installations, and rain barrels. In addition to helping206
reduce combined sewer overflow, which adversely impacted minority
communities, a side agreement between DC Water and the District of
Columbia created an ambitious local jobs program, including training and
certification opportunities for District residents interested in construction,
inspection, and maintenance jobs. The goal was to have over half of the
new jobs created by the green infrastructure project filled by District
residents.
MS. SCARROW: So, you previously mentioned when we were talking about your overall
responsibilities that you were one of the leaders of President Obama’s
Task force on illegal wildlife trafficking. What did that mean?
MR. CRUDEN: During the Obama administration, the President set up a task force to
focus on illegal wildlife trafficking. The task force was managed by three
co-leads: the Deputy Secretary of State, the head of the Fish and Wildlife
Service in the Department of the Interior, and me. We brought together
every agency that had responsibility in any way for wildlife trafficking.
I’m very pleased that during our tenure, we also brought in the
Department of Defense because they had unique information that was
beneficial to our work. In particular, DoD’s presence in Africa and
elsewhere gave us a better idea of what was happening on the ground.
As Co-chair, I hosted multiple meetings at DOJ of relevant
agencies, was the lead federal official on worldwide conferences on illegal
wildlife trafficking in Botswana and Hanoi and helped draft the National
Strategy to Combat Wildlife Trafficking.207
I also testified before the House of Representatives Committee on
Foreign Affairs in a hearing entitled “Poaching and Terrorism: A National
Security Challenge.” 28 In my testimony I reported that ENRD had
significantly increased its work in this critical area. Not just prosecutions
but also conducting numerous training sessions abroad on investigating
and prosecuting illegal activity in Indonesia, Brazil, Peru, Honduras, and
Russia. The Division also conducted international capacity-building in the
area of illegal wildlife trafficking through its participation in INTERPOL
(specifically the Wildlife Crime Working Group, Environmental Crime
Committee, and Fisheries Crime Working Group) and the International
Law Enforcement Academy (with programs for eastern European and
Southeast Asian law enforcement officials). I also spoke about our
enhanced prosecution efforts, their results, and challenges we were facing
and highlighted the decline in elephants and rhinos worldwide.
I usually kept a fake rhinoceros’ horn on my desk, which I showed
during press conferences. When I had the audience’s attention, I would
explain that poaching and illegal trafficking of tusks and horns was so
widespread because of the value of the tusks and horns. A single rhino
horn is worth tens of thousands of dollars. And, when the horn is ground
up into a powder, it is more valuable by weight than gold or cocaine!
28 https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/poaching-and-terrorism-national-security-challengestatement-assistant-attorney-general208
My testimony before Congress both described the problem and
supported legislation to improve enforcement. Fortunately, this is one area
in which I absolutely received bipartisan support. There was consensus
that it was critical to address illegal trafficking if we were to protect
species; and after my testimony, both Republican and Democratic
members approached me to offer their support.
The year after my congressional testimony, I was asked to speak at
the annual conference of the International Union for Conservation of
Nature in Honolulu. In that speech I described a prominent example of the
Environment Division’s robust prosecution of illegal wildlife trafficking
known as “Operation Crash,” a multi-agency effort to detect, deter and
prosecute those engaged in the illegal killing of rhinoceros and the illegal
trafficking of rhinoceros’ horns. A “crash” is the term used to describe a
herd of rhinoceros. Nearly 40 individuals and businesses had been
charged; and, by then, over 30 had been convicted. Defendants in these
cases were sentenced to significant prison terms and forfeited millions of
dollars in cash, gold bars, rhino horn, luxury vehicles, and jewelry.
MS. SCARROW: You mentioned the international conferences held in Botswana and Hanoi.
What was your role and what were these conferences like?
MR. CRUDEN: There were two internation illegal wildlife conferences during my tenure.
As the senior administration official, I led the U.S. delegations to both the
conference at Botswana and the later one in Hanoi. At both conferences I
presented the position of the United States, urging aggressive enforcement209
and describing what the U.S. was doing. My speech at the Botswana
meeting is on DOJ’s web site. 29 In Hanoi I met with senior Vietnamese
officials, as well as the head of the British delegation, Prince William.
My visit with Prince William was memorable, although we only
briefly discussed wildlife issues. What we really talked about was what we
had done that day in downtown Hanoi. He told me about playing soccer
with local high school students, while I had been in a pedicab going
through the city’s narrow but wonderous streets. Prince William said he
was envious, as his embassy would not let him do what I did, believing it
to be too dangerous. When I finished the meeting and briefed the U.S.
delegation staff, they were most disappointed that I had not met Prince
William’s wife, Kate Middleton
MS. SCARROW: I also understand you went to China as part of the delegation led by
Secretary John Kerry, concerning illegal wildlife trafficking.
MR. CRUDEN: That is correct. When the Chinese leaders came to the U.S. and met in the
State Department, I spoke to them about the status of illegal wildlife
trafficking in the world, urging them to do more. Secretary Kerry then
invited me to join his delegation when he visited China. (One aside:
enroute to Beijing, in a China Airlines plane, we suddenly lost power and
were forced to land in a small town in northern Canada. We stayed the
night, delayed as they fixed the plane.) My China visit was fascinating as
29 https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-john-c-cruden-deliversremarks-kasane-conference-illegal210
my days were spent with China’s equivalent of our Department of Justice
and the Environmental Protection Agency. At my request, the U.S.
Embassy set me up with a series of meetings with NGOs and law school
professors, and I spoke at China’s equivalent to our U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. My favorite part, though, was walking the Great Wall.
MS. SCARROW: I think we pretty much covered everything from your DOJ tenure, but I
understand that as President Obama’s term was ending, as was yours, you
met with him personally in the Oval Office. What was that like?
MR. CRUDEN: Toward the end of the administration, I was called by the White House
Personnel Office and told that the President would like to see me. He
knew I had led the litigation and settlement in the BP/Deep Water Horizon
oil spill litigation, and he wanted to talk to me about the result. People are
always surprised when I tell them that the White House played no role in
enforcement cases, leaving all the decisions to the Department of Justice.
That said, I knew that the President was personally interested. He
had established the National Commission on the BP/Deepwater Horizon
Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, spoken a number of times about the oil
spill, and had personally met with governors to make sure they knew the
administration was in full support.
I had been to the White House many times, but never to the Oval
Office. Senior staff brought me to the waiting area, then at the appointed
time, I walked through a hall directly into the Oval Office, where
President Obama was standing to greet me. His first words to me were “I211
am glad to have had an Army Ranger on my side.” He had me right there,
as his words meant then he had reviewed my background and knew of my
military experience.
We spent one-on-one time together, with me outlining the
challenges of the case, the year of negotiations, and the final consent
decree that five governors, five state attorneys general, and five federal
agency heads, had signed. I told him about the six public meetings on the
Consent Decree which we held to packed audiences in six different
locations, and that the court ultimately approved the detailed settlement
without changes. He had numerous questions about how everything had
evolved, and his knowledge of the case was impressive. I was able to tell
him with confidence that the result would be a positive legacy for the
administration, as billions of dollars over a 20-year period would be
available and restricted in use to restoring the Gulf and surrounding area to
what it was before the devastating oil spills. And, federal and state
governments were being reimbursed for their expenses, and new
requirements were being put in place to avoid future oil spills of this type.
At the end of that time, he thanked me and directed me to go back
to the Department of Justice and tell everybody involved how proud he
was of them and the result. It was late at night by the time I left the White
House, but I went back to the Department of Justice, and sat down at my
computer, and thanked everybody that had been involved including the
support staff, on behalf of the President. Later, the White House212
photographer sent me a whole album of pictures of just the two of us. One
of my favorite moments.
MS. SCARROW: Back to your discussions with the President. I understand that he later said
to you, “run through the tape, right to the very end, right to your last day,
and you’re doing good things for the American people.” How did that
resonate with you?
MR. CRUDEN: Like most of America, political appointees of the Obama administration
were completely unprepared for the election results in November 2016.
Like many others, we were disheartened over the election. While we were
still processing the result, the President called his senior political
appointees to the White House to talk with us personally. Notwithstanding
the election, he exhorted us to work every day for the American public,
right to the very end of the administration, and, in his words, “to run
through the tape.” I knew immediately he was using a track analogy for
his words, the image of running through the tape. As a track person in high
school and college, I understood what that meant. We were taught to lean
forward at the end of the race because sometimes even a few inches might
help you prevail. He knew enough about that sport to be able to use that as
an image for us as a goal, to serve the United States in the best
conceivable way right to the very end and to do so by going forward and
breaking the tape. That supercharged all of us.
The President’s words were particularly important to me, as we
were then working round the clock to wrap up the civil settlement and213
criminal plea agreement with Volkswagen in that massive case, now
referred to as “.” We resolved the case and held a packed press
conference announcing the agreement on the criminal phase and the final
civil settlement in late January, just before the end of the administration. 30
We were motivated by the President charging us to work until the very
end and every day acting in the best interest of the United States.
MS. SCARROW: It sounds like you clearly ran through the tape. Was there any sort of
transition between you and your successor? Did you have any contact with
them, or did you sort of walk out of your office and that was it?
MR. CRUDEN: There was a transition team that came into the Department of Justice.
Ronald Tenpas, a former Assistant Attorney General, a former U.S.
Attorney, and a Rhodes Scholar, led the team reviewing the
Environmental Division. I knew Ron well and had extremely high regard
for his knowledge and professionalism. He interviewed Section Chiefs,
discussed the state of the Division with me, and advised the transition
team.
MS. SCARROW: Looking back on your long and illustrious career at the Department, why
do you think you stayed for so many years?
MR. CRUDEN: I didn’t plan to stay as long as I did. But, counting my various
assignments at DOJ as Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Division; Chief of Environmental Enforcement; Deputy Assistant
30 https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-agrees-plead-guilty-and-pay-43billion-criminal-and-civil-penalties-six214
Attorney General; and finally Assistant Attorney General, Environment
and Natural Resources Division, I was at DOJ for more than 23 years.
There’s something magical about standing in court, looking at a
judge or jury and saying, “I’m John Cruden, I represent the United States.”
It’s very humbling, and a great responsibility. I loved the challenge and
thought the men and women at the Department of Justice were some of the
finest lawyers I ever met and ever had the honor of serving with. The
Department of Justice is the only federal agency whose name also is its
goal: justice. All of us at DOJ bonded together to try to bring meaning to
the name of our organization. When I thought my prosecutors were being
overly aggressive, I reminded them that we were the Department of
Justice, not the Department of Prosecution. The concept of “justice,” was
something that guided me. I was motivated by the mission and wonderful
colleagues. Speaking to law students, encouraging them to consider public
service, I often said: “Not every day, and not in every case, but in some
days and in some cases, I go home at night believing that I just made a
difference.”
MS. SCARROW: So, you were entitled to some well-deserved R&R after you finished your
tenure with the Department. What was the first thing that you did when
you left DOJ?
MR. CRUDEN: During my final couple of months at DOJ I started having serious hip
issues, probably related to my military time in Airborne, Ranger, and
Special Forces units. My doctor wanted to replace the hip immediately,215
but we were in the middle of VW negotiations and that was my highest
priority. After negotiating with my orthopedic surgeon, we agreed to a
date almost immediately after the administration changed.
MS. SCARROW: What did you do after you recovered from your hip replacement surgery?
Did you travel? I understand you visited several law schools.
MR. CRUDEN: After I recovered from the hip replacement surgery I went on a speaking
tour, fulfilling commitments that I had made while I was at DOJ. My wife
joined me on a multiple city tour in which I taught at West Point, lectured
at the University of Vermont Law School, and spoke to the Virgina and
West Virginia bar conferences. Later, I was invited to be a featured
speaker and be interviewed on television at the annual International
Association Bar Conference in Sydney, Australia concerning the
Volkswagen enforcement action and settlement. They were all quite
interesting, in particular teaching at West Point. While there we visited
their beautiful cemetery, which sits high above the Hudson River, the final
resting place for many friends, including my college roommate and my
college debate partner. At that time, my wife and I agreed we would
eventually be buried there. A few years later, I returned to that graveyard
for the memorial service of my beloved wife.
MS. SCARROW: I understand you later received an Award from the United States Military
Academy.
MR. CRUDEN: Yes, I received their Alumni award for professional accomplishments.
One of my West Point roommates, Glen Hewitt, nominated me for the216
award and assembled a number of letters in support. It was a real honor to
receive the award, as my career was shaped by West Point in many ways.
MS. SCARROW: You also became active with the American College of Environmental
Lawyers. Can you explain what that organization is and how you were
involved?
MR. CRUDEN: Yes. Former Deputy Attorney General Carol Dinkins nominated me to
become the first federal government lawyer in the prestigious American
College of Environmental Lawyers or ACOEL. In 2017, I was elected to
President of ACOEL. During my tenure, the annual conference was held
in Charleston, South Carolina, which drew the Governor and the Mayor of
Charleston, and we put on programs with the Environmental Protection
Agency and others on environmental issues. We also supported pro bono
work including capacity building for illegal wildlife trafficking in Africa.
MS. SCARROW: While you were serving as President of the American College of
Environmental Lawyers, you also were leading a small consulting group
that had contracts with two state groups that were working on water
issues. Can you describe that work?
MR. CRUDEN: After I left the administration, but before I joined a private law firm, I
formed a small consulting group, with Steve Samuels, a retired water
expert at the Department of Justice and his wife JoAnn, a retired
environmental consultant and we worked with two state organizations: the
International Commission on the Potomac River Basin and the Delaware
River Basin Commission. Our most significant product was a lengthy217
report, following interviews with senior leaders in Virginia, Maryland, and
D.C., examining the Potomac River and making recommendations as to
how they could handle low flow issues if there were water drought
problems. I understand they refer to this as the Cruden Report.
MS. SCARROW: I think this is out of order chronologically, but there are two organizations
that we haven’t talked about, and I wanted you to briefly touch on. You
were a member of the Administrative Conference of the United States
from 2013 to 2014. How did that fit into the work that you were doing?
MR. CRUDEN: That’s a very unique organization with a highly qualified membership of
professionals, many from the academic community. I was involved for
one year while President of the Environmental Law Institute. I
participated, and voted, but had just a modest role. As soon as I was
nominated by the President to be Assistant Attorney General, I had to
resign from that position.
MS. SCARROW: Second, I’d be remiss if we didn’t talk about your role in the D.C.
Circuit’s Judicial Conference Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services.
We talked about your commitment to pro bono work, but can you talk
about your role on the Committee and how important it was to you?
MR. CRUDEN: The D.C. Circuit has several important committees, and one of them is on
pro bono representation. Then Chief Judge Sentelle appointed me to that
committee based on my experience in the D.C. Bar. The committee was
quite active, met frequently under the supervision of a federal District
Court judge, and prepared reports on pro bono activities for the annual218
D.C. Circuit Judicial Conferences. Because of my interest and support of
government pro bono, I wrote the portion of the report outlining
government pro bono activities. Each year the number of government
participants was on the rise. And each year the committee selected the best
federal agency doing pro bono work. I was, and continue to be, very
honored that the accolade is named the John C. Cruden Award.
I can remember standing with then Chief Judge Merrick Garland,
who I knew from his days at the Department of Justice, at one of the
government pro bono award ceremonies. He was the main speaker and
told me that it was one of his favorite meetings. He enjoyed meeting with,
and honoring, the government pro bono winners of the year. His presence
and enthusiastic support made these award ceremonies a real success.
MS. SCARROW: Getting back on track chronologically, since 2018, you’ve been working at
Beveridge and Diamond as principal. Can you talk about what drew you to
the firm?
MR. CRUDEN: Initially I was attracted to the firm and encouraged by its then-managing
partner Ben Wilson. At one stage Ben called my wife from Germany to
encourage her to support him in getting me to the firm. I knew Ben well. I
had lectured in the class that he teaches at Howard Law School and
brought him on to the Board of the Environmental Law Institute when I
was President. As I learned more about the firm, I concluded that
Beveridge and Diamond was the best fit for me. It practices exclusively
environmental law, I knew many of their attorneys, and I liked the firm’s219
commitment to quality of life, excellence, integrity, and professionalism.
This year the firm celebrated its 50 th anniversary. It has received many
environmental accolades, has a remarkably diverse group of lawyers and
staff, and is dedicated to professionalism and service.
MS. SCARROW: Is it correct that you’re co-leader of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group?
MR. CRUDEN: Yes, I co-lead the Litigation Practice Group and serve on firm committees,
including the firm’s Pro Bono Committee.
MS. SCARROW: Can you discuss your work at Beveridge and Diamond?
MR CRUDEN: My practice is diverse, exciting, and enriching. The biggest area for me is
environmental litigation; and I have had a variety of clients, including the
International Joint Commission, which governs the boundary waters
between the United States and Canada. I have also represented an
environmental NGO in New York, a crane company, the state of
Oklahoma, Arlington County, and a number of others. And I am involved
in representing the city of San Francisco in a Clean Water Act case that is
currently before the Supreme Court. Another part of my work is
providing strategic advice to companies on changes to the law, ways to
make certain they remain in compliance with the law, and ways to
improve performance and management. I also serve in several cases as an
expert witness. I have now done about 5 such cases and have another
pending right now. It is interesting for me, a litigator, to now serve as an
expert and have others preparing me. Finally, I have continued to have a
robust speaking schedule, giving lectures on the Supreme Court to220
conferences of the American Bar Association, the American Law Institute,
and the American College of Environmental Lawyers. In addition, I have
been a featured speaker at Internation Bar Association conferences in
Seoul, South Korea and Lisbon, Portugal.
MS. SCARROW: More recently, in October 2020, you were awarded the ABA’s Lifetime
Achievement Award in Environmental, Energy, and Resources Law and
Policy. Can you tell me about that?
MR. CRUDEN: I was surprised and very honored. That is their highest award.
MS. SCARROW: I understand that the award is given to someone who has dedicated a
lifetime of work in environmental, energy, or resource law and policy, in
government agencies, the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, and other
institutions, and that you were only the third recipient to ever receive this
award.
MR. CRUDEN: I believe that’s correct. When they announced the award, they focused on
my efforts to improve the environment, my work leading record-breaking
enforcement, and my efforts to promote civility and integrity.
MS. SCARROW: I understand that you are still active in the ABA, and that you have served
on the Board of Governors.
MR. CRUDEN: Yes. The ABA’s Board of Governors makes policy decisions for the ABA.
A few years ago, I was elected to represent the District of Columbia and
Virginia on the Board. It is a fascinating organization. While on the Board,
I was a member of the Profession, Public Service and Diversity221
Committee and served as liaison to the Center on Human Rights and the
Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division.
MS. SCARROW: I understand that at the beginning of President Biden’s term, you served
on his transition team. Can you talk about that role?
MR. CRUDEN: After the election, but before inauguration, I served on the transition team.
Our work was confidential. I can say, however, that my work was entirely
Department of Justice-oriented.
MS. SCARROW: You might not be able to talk about it, but was it helping to recommend
people to put it into place in the offices or more policy related?
MR. CRUDEN: There were people other than me also focused on the Department of
Justice, but my responsibility was almost entirely reviewing and then
interviewing candidates for key political positions and then making
recommendations to the overall transition team, which, of course, reported
to the President-elect as to who should be selected and when it should
happen.
MS. SCARROW: You’ve also served as an adjunct professor, both at George Washington
University and Santa Clara University Law Schools since 2018. Can you
talk a little bit about teaching and what you like about it?
MR CRUDEN: At George Washington University I teach a class on environmental law in
the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration. My
students are enrolled in the Master of Public Policy program. I find the
students fascinating because they’re not lawyers and they ask more “why”
questions that focus on policy.222
The class I do annually at Santa Clara Law School is advanced
environmental enforcement. It is a weekend class starting Friday afternoon
and ending Sunday afternoon. It is very interactive, very practical. The
students role play, present arguments and positions, and brief leading
cases. Their final exam is to prepare a citizen complaint in a Clean Water
Act case.
MS. SCARROW: Sounds interesting. Before we leave your professional life and turn to your
family, I have one last environmental law question. What do you think the
challenges are ahead in the environmental world and where is the future of
environmental law headed?
MR. CRUDEN: Two parts to your question. I frequently talk to law students, both as a
professor and a mentor. I’m very bullish about the environment, energy,
and natural resources sectors as a good place for law students to study and
find a satisfying job.
Without question, the threats of climate change and weather events
are going to be challenging throughout the world for the rest of our
lifetimes. There have been some gains, including the impressive Biden era
Inflation Reduction Act that put more money into advancing and
promoting alternative energy projects and research and development.
That’s all positive, but the challenges are daunting; and we need
worldwide cooperation and not just U.S. efforts to address the crisis. A
key issue in the future will be the role of China, by far the largest emitter
of greenhouse gases.223
Our bedrock environmental laws were passed with overwhelming
bipartisan majorities in the 1970s and 1980s. There really hasn’t been
anything significant since the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990 and the
Lautenberg Act Toxic Substance Control Act or TSCA Amendments since
then. Changes are needed to address the modern era of environmental
issues. For example, changes and improvements in chemistry, recently
uncovered unforeseen dangers of “forever,” or PFAS, chemicals. Our laws
must be adaptable enough to address new and unforeseen developments.
I continue to support the environmental justice concept. I still
believe that, without question, much of the environmental degradation of
the United States is falling disproportionately on minorities and lowincome people and that we need to continue to work on correcting both
historical and current injustices.
And, last but certainly not least, we must continue efforts to
improve and make the environment something that we can be proud to
pass on to our grandchildren and beyond.
MS. SCARROW: Next we’re going to turn to your family and round out our oral history. I
know that we’ve interspersed conversations about your family throughout
our talking but wanted to turn more specifically to them. I thought we
could first start talking about your daughters, Kristen and Heather. Can
you tell me a little bit about what they were like growing up?
MR. CRUDEN: I am passionate about my exceptional daughters and am enormously proud
of them. Kristen was born in California at Stanford University Hospital224
when I was in law school. Heather was born in Frankfurt, Germany when I
was stationed there as a JAG officer. Both are distinguished professionals,
mothers, and wives. Kristin earned a master’s degree from the University
of Virginia in education. She is a reading specialist in the Loudon School
District. Heather lives in Yorktown, Virginia, with her husband, who was,
up until recently, an F-15 pilot with the Air Force. He is now a financial
planner, often working with military families. Heather works with him.
Both daughters have two children of their own, making me the proud
grandad of four grandchildren—two boys and two girls—who are the
centerpiece of my life.
MS. SCARROW: I understand that while your daughters were in high school you were
teaching high school students at St. Stephens Methodist Church. Can you
talk a little bit about that?
MR. CRUDEN: When we came back from Germany, we found a nearby Methodist Church
which we selected because it had a wonderful youth program. While there
I was asked to teach high school Sunday school, which included both my
daughters. Talk about being constantly evaluated! It was a rewarding
experience.
MS. SCARROW: I understand that when Kristen returned home from her freshman year of
college that she had a job at the Justice Federal Credit Union and the two
of you would often drive to work together. That must have been fun.
MR. CRUDEN: Yes. We usually commuted together to Main DOJ. The Justice Credit
Union is inside the Department of Justice, so I knew it would be safe for225
her to be there. Kristen worked as a bank teller; and when Heather
graduated from high school, she replaced Kristen at the Credit Union.
They worked summers and over the Christmas holidays, an important
source of money for college. I thought it was a wonderful entry level
position for them: a real job requiring professional clothes, the need to
arrive on time, and real clients to serve. And they both ended up knowing
a lot of people at DOJ, including Attorney General Janet Reno. I treasure
that time together with my beloved daughters.
MS. SCARROW: You mentioned that Kristen went to Virginia Tech. Where did Heather go
to school?
MR. CRUDEN: Heather went to James Madison University and received her degree in
computer information systems. She also played on JMU’s water polo
team.
MS. SCARROW: You mentioned that you have four grandchildren. Can you talk a little bit
about them?
MR. CRUDEN: The oldest, Ryan, just graduated from Virginia Tech studying cybersecurity and national security. Lauren just graduated from the University
of Virginia in Charlottesville as an English major. Both will be staying an
extra year in college to get their master’s degrees. Third, is Jonathan, who
just finished his freshman year at James Madsion University. And then,
fourth, is Katelyn who is graduated from high school in June 2024 and has
an athletic scholarship to Radford University. Each of them was the226
captain of his/her high school cross-county team. Ryan and Jonathan are
Eagle Scouts. Each one makes me immensely proud.
MS. SCARROW: Ryan and Jonathan are siblings, and Lauren and Katelyn and siblings?
MR. CRUDEN: That’s correct.
MS. SCARROW: I understand that Katelyn was born in Okinawa?
MR. CRUDEN: Katelyn was born in Okinawa. Heather and her husband, Scott, were
assigned to the air base in Okinawa because Scott was an F-15 pilot. We
visited Okinawa, an utterly amazing island, reminiscent of Oahu in the
1960s.
MS. SCARROW: I also understand that you had a special trip with each grandchild when
they turned ten.
MR. CRUDEN: Yes. An organization called Road Scholar puts together vacations for
grandparents and their grandchildren. We encouraged each grandchild to
choose a National Park vacation. Ryan chose Yellowstone. Lauren picked
the Glacier. Jonathan wanted Mt Rushmore and Custer State Park in South
Dakota. And Katelyn chose white water rafting through the Grand
Canyon. Wonderful memories.
MS. SCARROW: I know this might be difficult to talk about, but can you talk a little bit
more about your wife Sharon?
MR. CRUDEN: I am honored beyond belief to have had a wife I adored in marriage and
greatly admired for over 52 years. We grew up in the same small town in
Michigan, dated our senior year of high school, and then she went to
college first in Michigan and then Chicago while I was going to West227
Point. We married ten days after I graduated from West Point at the Mary
Martha Chapel in Greenfield Village, Dearborn, Michigan.
After all the military schools that I needed to go through -airborne ranger, jump master, infantry — we went to Germany together.
She taught all during the time that I was in the military. She often said that
she taught at every possible level. from pre-school to graduate degree
classes. While I was in law school, she received a master’s in special
education through the University of California at San Jose and then taught
at De Anza College. Later, she received her education specialist degree
and taught at University of Virginia. She also taught multiple officers and
enlisted people through the University of Maryland when we were in
Europe. Sharon was a groundbreaking force in the then new field of
special education and was well known in that discipline. She also had an
astonishing musical ability, both singing and playing the piano, which she
did throughout her lifetime including in several choruses. When we were
in Europe, she was the church choir director. Her legacy as an educator,
musician, and mother was extraordinary in all respects.
In 2021, Sharon had a tragic accident and died from a fall. She was
buried at West Point at the cemetery we visited together a few years
earlier. Through donations and contributions made by people who knew
her and loved her, we now have three benches that bear her name. The
first one is in Oronoco Park in Alexandria, Virginia, in a path along the
water that she walked almost daily. The second is opposite the new Army228
Museum, dedicated not just to her, but to all Army wives. We had a
formal ceremony inaugurating both of those benches. The Oronoco
memorial was led by our minister, and the one at the Army Museum was
led by the former Judge Advocate General of the Army, Major General
William K. Suter. Both involved a number of my West Point classmates
and officers I served with in the Army. And then more recently, through
donations by the American College of Environmental Lawyers, there’s
another bench dedicated to her and located in a wonderful park at
Accotink Lake in Virginia. This bench recognizes her musical
contributions as well. Finally, we established a scholarship in her name for
graduates of our high school who choose to teach. So, her legacy
continued, and she was an absolutely integral part of my life.
MS. SCARROW: So, we’ve discussed your wonderful career, your rich family life, but tell
us what you like to do for fun.
MR. CRUDEN: Much of my life has involved athletics and being outdoors. In spite of my
zeal, my high basketball career was cut short by a lack of size and talent.
The rest of my athletic endeavors have been fueled by my love for athletic
competition, unencumbered by any real ability. In high school I ran track
and received a scholarship to the University of Michigan before being
accepted at West Point. In college my primary sports were track and
boxing. While in the military, I joined the Potomac Valley Track Club and
participated in many of their national level meets, along with competing in
the Senior Olympics in both running and biking. When stationed in229
Europe, I learned to cross-country ski and competed in military
competitions. Returning to the U.S, my athletic career then went from
Master’s track, to longer 5 and 10k races, and then ten “sprint” triathlons.
At the suggestion of my daughter, I became SCUBA certified and have
now dived in multiple countries, including Australia’s famous Great
Barrier Reef. And have completed kayaking trips in Alaska and the
Canadian Thousand Islands, and this year near Key Largo in Florida.
Now, living in Old Town, Alexandria, near the wonderful Mount Vernon
trail, my exercise is often biking and hiking on that glorious path along the
Potomac River, which is also a national park.
MS. SCARROW: I understand that you also had DOJ-oriented vacation travel group
adventures?
MR. CRUDEN: Yes, I should mention my exceptional vacation travel group. Starting in
2011, David Buente, a past Section Chief of the DOJ Environmental
Enforcement Section, organized a National Geographic Society trip to
Alaska and Denali National Park. Those invited and participating were:
Angus MacBeth, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and his wife;
Nancy Firestone, a federal judge and former Deputy Chief of
Environmental Enforcement Section, and Pat Payne; Steve Ramsey,
former Chief of Environmental Enforcement, and Ann Ramsey; Sheila
Jones, former Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, and
Doug Browning; Don Carr, former Section Chief, and Celia Lin; Dave
Buente and Fran Dubrowski; plus my wife and I. Subsequently we have230
traveled together to Ecuador, Galapagos, Turkey, Greece, Albania,
Montenegro, Bosnia, and Croatia. Some of the latter trips were on the Sea
Cloud, a historic 5 mastered sailing ship.
MS. SCARROW: One last. question about your background. I know that you have coached a
Special Olympic swim meet for over two decades. Can you describe how
you became involved?
MR. CRUDEN: When my youngest daughter, Heather, was a senior in high school her
Honor Society had a requirement for community service. As she was on
the school swimming team, she decided she would volunteer in the Special
Olympic program for swimming. She then asked me to accompany her –
an opportunity no dad would pass up! That experience taught me a lot, and
I went through the several rounds of training to become a certified coach
for Fairfax County, and I now have my own team.
MS. SCARROW: What do you do as coach? How often do you practice and do you have
another assistance?
MR. CRUDEN: My team has now grown to 55 special needs swimmers. We meet in three
class segments each Saturday. With a co-coach and ten volunteers, we
teach beginner, intermediate, and competitive swimming. We also have 34 swim meets each year that are identical to any high school swim meet
with the same events. At the end of the season, selections are made for the
annual Virginia Special Olympic Games swim meet in Richmond. In
2024, 15 of our swimmers were selected to participate and 5 of them won
their event. This is a passion of mine, and I strongly believe that I receive231
more than I give from these dedicated young people. They may have
special needs, but they give their absolute best and are a constant
inspiration to me.
MS. SCARROW: I understand that you received Fairfax County’s Volunteer of the Year
award for your Special Olympics work.
MR. CRUDEN: I’m proud of that but am prouder of our athletes’ effort and dedication and
the fact that so many of our swimmers have gone on to be successful in
the competition. Many of our athletes at the Virginia Special Olympics
Games win their events. And two of our athletes have competed in the
International Special Olympics Games. I continue to believe that I receive
much more than I give by working with these amazing athletes.
Before each competition, we all recite the Special Olympics Oath,
written by Eunice Kennedy Shriver: “Let me win. But if I cannot win, let
me be brave in the attempt.” Those few words describe much of my life,
too.
MS. SCARROW: Thank you for sharing that with us. Is there anything else you would
include as we close?
MR. CRUDEN: Thank you, I would like to close by honoring a fallen friend who had a
significant impact on my life as a mentor, Steve Pollak. I knew of Steve,
as a former Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division at
DOJ. When I became President of the D.C. Bar, he was gracious in giving
me advice and assistance. Throughout his five decades of practice, Steve
was actively involved in the legal services community in Washington,232
D.C., serving in various leadership roles at the District of Columbia Bar
Foundation, the D.C. Access to Justice Commission, the Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Washington Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. Steve recruited me to be a
Board member of the D.C. Bar Foundation while he was President, and we
were lifelong friends. I miss him and honor his memory.
MS. SCARROW: So that pretty much wraps up the questions that I have. Is there anything
else that you would like to touch on before we finish up?
MR. CRUDEN: No. Only to thank you. You’ve spent a lot of time talking with others to
prepare for this interview, and you have had to review many press
releases, my law review articles, and even my congressional testimony.
You were so professional and so thorough, and it’s really been wonderful
for me to get to know you and appreciate just how you handled this
interview.
MS. SCARROW: My pleasure.