Loper Bright
Interpreting the Clean Air Act After Chevron’s Demise
A recent Ninth Circuit case requires states to do more to achieve clean air goals.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit decided Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, which is both a significant air pollution case and an interesting case study in how the Supreme Court has changed judicial review of agency actions. Applying what it considered to be the best interpretation of an ambiguous statute, the Court required tougher air pollution controls for the San Joaquin Valley. The dissent argued that the decision would be a disaster in terms of policy. But is that even relevant under the Loper Bright ruling?
In Harm’s Way
Agency’s efforts to repeal harm definition for the ESA carries significant legal risks
The Trump Administration has finalized a rule that would eliminate the definition of harm from the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Harm is one component of the definition of take in the ESA, and Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of members of endangered species. As I noted last spring, when the …
Continue reading “In Harm’s Way”
CONTINUE READINGPing-pong government and the ESA
Recent proposed revisions for the ESA just reset the clock to 2020.
The Trump Administration in November proposed revisions to the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Normally, I would try to do a thoughtful review of the changes and what I think their implications are. But that is really not necessary this time, since what the Administration is proposing is to undo Biden Administration changes …
Continue reading “Ping-pong government and the ESA”
CONTINUE READINGPrecedent, the Trump Administration, and Endangered Species
A new Trump Administration initiative misinterprets the overruling of Chevron
The Trump Administration’s effort to strip away protections under the Endangered Species Act that had previously been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Administration seems to think they’re entitled to ignore that earlier decision because it was decided under the Chevron test and Chevron has since been overruled. They’re wrong. If it wishes to change the existing interpretation, the agency must give a reasoned argument for doing so that discusses the relevant policy issues, including reliance and the impact of its decision on endangered species.
CONTINUE READINGNEPA and Loper Deference
The CEQ regulations will continue to receive deference. The question is how much.
The Supreme Court already has a NEPA case on its docket for next year. That should give the Court the chance to clarify Loper as well as the scope of CEQ’s authority.
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding Loper: Delegation & Discretion
Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.
The Supreme Court took away Chevron deference, but it also recognized that Congress can give agencies the power to clarify statutes and fill in gaps.
CONTINUE READINGJudicial Review After Loper Bright
We used to have the Chevron test? What test do we have now?
Loper Bright has created a new two-part test for courts to apply when an agency has interpreted a statute. It’s not the same as Chevron, but it does have some family resemblance.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
The Drain is a roundup of climate and environmental news from Legal Planet delivered to your Inbox once a week.
