statutory interpretation Archives

statutory interpretation

Judicial 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.

Is the Sky Falling? Chevron, Loper Bright, and Judicial Deference

Perplexed? Worried? Here’s a guide to a fraught area of law.

If you’re confused about the Supreme Court’s ruling, you’re not alone. Scholars will be discussing the recent ruling for years. It clearly will limit the leeway that agencies have to interpret statutes, meaning less flexibility to deal with new problems. But unlike many commentators, I don’t think the sky is falling. I was teaching environmental …

Continue reading “Is the Sky Falling? Chevron, Loper Bright, and Judicial Deference”

The Supreme Court’s Top-10 Environmental Law Decisions

If these decisions had come out differently, environmental law would look very different than it does today.

Here’s what you really need to know about the Supreme Court’s rulings on environmental law — including its recent trend toward weakening environmental protection.

Judicial Deference to Agencies: A Timeline

Decisions about judicial deference to agencies on legal issues didn’t begin or end with Chevron.

The Supreme Court is about to make a major decision about the balance of power between courts and agencies like EPA. Here’s what you need to know about the history if the issue to understand what’s going today.

Deciphering NEPA 2.0

Here’s everything you wanted to know about the “New NEPA” but were afraid to ask.

NEPA was long an island of legal stability, standing almost unamended for over a half century. Then in the summer of 2023, everything changed. As a rider on the agreement to raise the debt ceiling, Congress extensively rewrote and expanded NEPA, gifting us with a new statutory regime. As I’ve written before — and discuss …

Continue reading “Deciphering NEPA 2.0”

More Unforced Errors in the 2023 NEPA Amendments

Bluntly speaking, the statute is a mess.

When the 2023 amendments to NEPA passed as part of the debt ceiling bill, I wrote a series of blog posts about the drafting errors. It turns out that I missed some, as I discovered when working on the new edition of my environmental law casebook. They really aren’t all that subtle, and it’s hard …

Continue reading “More Unforced Errors in the 2023 NEPA Amendments”

Power Play: The Effects of Overruling Chevron

Who will win and who will lose if Chevron is overruled?

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about whether to overrule the Chevron doctrine. That doctrine allows administrative agencies that implement statutes to resolve ambiguities in those statutes. Overruling the doctrine would shift that power to courts. Institutionally, then, judges would be the big winners, with more sway over how laws are implemented. …

Continue reading “Power Play: The Effects of Overruling Chevron”

Unprecedented Legal Questions

The climate crisis is unprecedented. So is its legal fallout.

In teaching my class on Climate Law, I’ve been struck by how many new legal questions courts are confronting as a result of the climate crisis. Dealing with these new legal questions is going to put stress on existing legal doctrines and require courts to rethink some basic principles. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is pushing …

Continue reading “Unprecedented Legal Questions”

The Presidency Under Siege

The current Justices are no friends of presidential power.

As recent scholarship has shown, the Supreme Court has been increasingly aggressive in countering exercises of presidential power. From the environmental perspective, West Virginia v. EPA is the most relevant example of the Court’s efforts to cut the presidency down to size. True, the Court purported to be chastising EPA, part of the bureaucracy. Yet …

Continue reading “The Presidency Under Siege”

Whose Major Questions Doctrine?

There are two versions of the doctrine. One of them is more dangerous.

When it struck down Obama’s signature climate regulation in West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court formally adopted the major questions doctrine as a way to synthesize prior anti-regulatory rulings. The major questions doctrine (MQD to insiders) has gotten a lot of attention. One thing that’s been overlooked, however, is that there are two versions …

Continue reading “Whose Major Questions Doctrine?”

Is 2025 the Year of the Carbon Tax?

Carbon border adjustment mechanisms are increasingly the talk of Washington. UCLA Law’s Kimberly Clausing explains some of the options on the table.

Renewable Energy: A Timeline

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

Understanding Loper: A Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing?

The real world effects may be limited. Or they may undercut presidential power, to the surprise of advocates of the unitary executive.

Understanding Loper: The Grandfather Clause

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

Understanding Loper: The Primacy of Skidmore

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

$10 Billion Climate Bond Heads to the California Ballot

Prop 4 would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion toward safe drinking water and groundwater, wildfire and forest programs, and to combat sea level rise.

Understanding Loper: Delegation & Discretion

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

Playing fast and loose with reality

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

(Energy) Independence Day

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.

California can help meet its climate goals by removing SERP’s sunset date

By Molly Bruce, Dave Smith, Michael Kiparsky, Derek Hitchcock, Peter Van De Burgt, Sydney Chamberlin, Megan Cleveland

Losing Chevron: What Does It Mean for California?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright will not necessarily impact how California courts review our state agency determinations. But we’ll feel it in other ways.

statutory interpretation

We used to have the Chevron test? What test do we have now?

Perplexed? Worried? Here’s a guide to a fraught area of law.

If these decisions had come out differently, environmental law would look very different than it does today.

Decisions about judicial deference to agencies on legal issues didn’t begin or end with Chevron.

Here’s everything you wanted to know about the “New NEPA” but were afraid to ask.

Bluntly speaking, the statute is a mess.

Who will win and who will lose if Chevron is overruled?

The climate crisis is unprecedented. So is its legal fallout.

The current Justices are no friends of presidential power.

There are two versions of the doctrine. One of them is more dangerous.

TRENDING

Carbon border adjustment mechanisms are increasingly the talk of Washington. UCLA Law’s Kimberly Clausing explains some of the options on the table.

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

The real world effects may be limited. Or they may undercut presidential power, to the surprise of advocates of the unitary executive.

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

Prop 4 would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion toward safe drinking water and groundwater, wildfire and forest programs, and to combat sea level rise.

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.

By Molly Bruce, Dave Smith, Michael Kiparsky, Derek Hitchcock, Peter Van De Burgt, Sydney Chamberlin, Megan Cleveland

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright will not necessarily impact how California courts review our state agency determinations. But we’ll feel it in other ways.

Perplexed? Worried? Here’s a guide to a fraught area of law.

The Supreme Court has already grabbed power from agencies through the major questions doctrine.

We used to have the Chevron test? What test do we have now?

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.