administrative law
NEPA in the Supreme Court (Part IV)
Understanding how causation applies for NEPA reviews.
This functional approach is consistent with Supreme Court precedent, based on the text and purposes of NEPA, and provides workable guidelines for agencies to determine what kinds of effects to examine when conducting environmental reviews. It is the approach the Court should follow when deciding Seven Counties, and when giving guidance to lower courts and agencies about how to apply NEPA.
CONTINUE READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court (Part III)
Our guide to understanding how causation applies for NEPA reviews.
Overall, the Supreme Court has articulated a functional approach that is based on the purposes of NEPA, based on the structure and text of the statute. Today’s post will lay the foundation by discussing NEPA’s purposes and how they differ from those of another area of law often used as an analogy, tort law
CONTINUE READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court (Part II)
Here’s why the Supreme Court should reject radical arguments for limiting environmental impact statements.
Our last post explained the background of the Seven Counties NEPA case, which is currently pending in the Supreme Court. Today, we discuss the radical arguments that have been made in the case and why they should be rejected. NEPA requires that agencies consider the environmental effects of their projects, but the petitioners raise hairsplitting arguments to exclude obvious effects due to technicalities. Pleas for revising the law should be made to Congress, not to the Supreme Court.
CONTINUE READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court (Part I)
A pending case could mean radical retrenchment of a foundational environmental law.
In what could turn out to be another loss for environmental protection in the Supreme Court, the Court is about to decide a major case about the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, has important implications for issues such as whether NEPA covers climate change impacts.
CONTINUE READINGThe Libertarian Critique of Trump’s “Schedule F”
As it turns out, you can hate BOTH government regulation and Trump’s assault on the “deep state.”
Installing inexperienced ideologues in the executive branch won’t accomplish anything useful and would only make it harder to implement deregulatory policies. The main effect of Schedule F would be gridlock rather than policy change
CONTINUE READINGRightwing Authoritarianism vs the Environment
In the U.S. and elsewhere, rightwing authoritarians oppose climate action. That’s not a coincidence.
Project 2025 favors authoritarian presidential rule. It also wants to destroy environmental regulation, especially climate law. That’s not a coincidence. The combination of authoritarianism, extreme conservative ideology, and anti-environmentalism is common globally, not just in U.S. politics. There’s no logical connection between a belief in authoritarian government, upholding traditional hierarchies, and views about protecting the …
Continue reading “Rightwing Authoritarianism vs the Environment”
CONTINUE READINGThe Impoundment Gambit
Trump plans to use this unconstitutional strategy to reverse congressional priorities and gut environmental agencies.
Trump’s claim of constitutional control over spending would allow him to slash social security or environmental protection with a single stroke his pen, and there would be nothing Congress could do about it.
CONTINUE READINGSchedule F and the Future of the Regulatory State
What is Schedule F? Would it be legal? And why does it matter so much?
Trump has vowed to destroy the “deep state” and to wreak vengeance on his enemies. Something called “Schedule F” is one of the key tools he plans to use as soon as he takes office to “remove rogue bureaucrats,” and he promises to use that tool “very aggressively.”
CONTINUE READINGThe D.C. Circuit and the Biden Power Plant Rule
The court’s denial of a stay is very good news for EPA
The D.C. Circuit frequently denies stays, but this ruling was notable for three reasons: It allows an important climate change regulation to go into effect; it clarified an important legal doctrine; and it has a good chance of being upheld on appeal.
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding Loper: The Primacy of Skidmore
A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.
Some commentators have tended to write off Skidmore and assume that judges will ignore agency views after Loper Bright. That is a misreading of the Court’s opinions in Loper and in Skidmore itself.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
