June 29, 1992 was a great day for property rights advocates. But what came later wasn’t so good.
On this date in 1992, the property rights movement achieved its greatest victory in the form of the Supreme Court’s Lucas ruling. The campaign to protect property rights seemed to have huge momentum. But things didn’t work out that way. For property rights advocates, Lucas turned out to be a false dawn. Mr. Lucas owned …CONTINUE READING
Could Congress mandate CORVID-19 vaccinations? Not if you take some Supreme Court opinions seriously.
If we get a vaccine against a national epidemic, could Congress pass a law requiring everyone to get vaccinated? That very question was asked during the Supreme Court argument in the 2012 constitutional challenge to Obamacare’s individual mandate. The lawyer challenging Obamacare said “no, Congress couldn’t do that.” What’s shocking is that this may have …CONTINUE READING
Short answer: “No.” And it might even be unconstitutional for states to grant such exemptions.
Most religious groups have willingly complied with public health limits on large gatherings. But not all. These claims of religious exemption, and some states’ responses to them, raise important constitutional issues. There have been a couple of cases in the spotlight. Rodney Howard-Browne is a Florida preacher who prayed over Trump in the Oval Office …CONTINUE READING
For statutory, practical, and constitutional reasons, states are on the front line.
The states have been out in front in dealing with the coronavirus. Apart from Trump’s tardy response to the crisis, there are reasons for this, involving limits on Trump’s authority, practicalities, and constitutional rulings. Statutory limits. As I discussed in a previous post, the President’s power to deal with an epidemic is mostly derived from …CONTINUE READING
Five books with fresh perspectives on environmental issues.
Law reviews make little effort to track new books, unlike other journals in other disciplines . So it’s pretty much hit-or-miss whether you learn about relevant new books. I wanted to share some interesting finds that have crossed my desk, joined a growing pile of unread books, and then slowly left the pile. The subjects …CONTINUE READING
The current bench is tilted against environmental regulation. It could get worse.
In September, Take Back the Court issued a study entitled, “The Roberts Court Would Likely Strike Down Climate Change Legislation.” In my view, that’s too alarmist. But the current conservative majority definitely will be an obstacle to aggressive use of government regulation. That could hold true well into the 2030s, depending on who leaves the …CONTINUE READING
Surprise, surprise, EPA has tried to stonewall an investigation.
EPA’s Acting Inspector General Charles J. Sheehan took the extraordinary step last week of notifying Congress that EPA was stonewalling his investigation of potential misconduct involving EPA’s Chief of Staff. This was a gutsy move for Sheehan, especially given the extra vulnerability created by his Acting status. Sheehan, it is worth noting, is a career …CONTINUE READING
How a conservative Court defended environmental protection a century ago.
Like today’s Court, the Supreme Court a century ago was dominated by conservatives. The Lochner era, from around 1900 to 1935, was named after the most notorious case of that period. The Lochner case, which struck down a maximum hours law for workers, epitomized the conservative Supreme Court of that era. Yet that conservative Court …CONTINUE READING
The DC Circuit upholds a major air regulation.
On Friday, the D.C. Circuit decided Murray Energy v. EPA. The court upheld EPA’s health-based 2015 air quality standards for ozone against challenges from industry (rules too strong) and environmental groups (rules too weak). However, it rejected a grandfather clause that prevented the new standards from applying to plants whose permit applications were in-process when …CONTINUE READING
The odds against the “children’s case” are bad and getting worse. But there’s a valid insight at its core.
Juliana v. United States, often called the “children’s case,” is an imaginative effort to make the federal government responsible for its role in promoting the production and use of fossil fuels and its failure to control carbon emissions. They ask the court to “declare the United States’ current environmental policy infringes their fundamental rights, direct the …CONTINUE READING