statutory interpretation
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?
86ing Natural Gas in New Buildings
A new Second Circuit opinions empowers bans on fossil fuels in new buildings.
Three years ago, the Ninth Circuit struck down a Berkeley ordinance banning natural gas hookups for new buildings. The court said that the ordinance was preempted by a federal law regulating appliance efficiency. The Second Circuit has now reached the opposite conclusion about an NYC ordinance that basically bans fossil fuels in new buildings. The Second Circuit opinion zoomed in on the language of the federal law, which seems more in line with Supreme Court’s current approach to statutory interpretation.
CONTINUE READINGChallenging Hegseth’s National Security Gambit
Hegseth may not have as much power as he thinks to run roughshod over the Endangered Species Act.
According to a DOJ filing, “[o]n March 13, 2026, the Secretary of War notified the Secretary of the Interior that the Secretary of War found it necessary for reasons of national security to exempt from the ESA’s requirements all Gulf of America oil and gas exploration and development activities.” It’s difficult but not impossible to challenge the government on issues of national security. Hegseth’s demand for an exemption to allow oil companies to destroy endangered species is a bold, aggressive move, much like the decision to go to war against Iran. As with the war itself, however, the legal and political aftermath may prove a lot messier than the Administration is anticipating. Here are some possible arguments that could potentially limit Hegseth’s powers.
CONTINUE READINGDoes Federal Law Still Preempt State Standards Relating to Fuel Efficiency?
The answer may depend on what being “in effect” means.
If a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it, does it still make a sound? If a law hasn’t been formally repealed but can be violated with complete impunity, is it still in effect? This matters because federal law preempts state fuel efficiency standards if, but only if, a federal standard is “in effect.” Congress just eliminated any penalty for violating the federqal standards. Which means at best they have only a kind of ghostly existence, but no substance to speak of.
CONTINUE READINGThe Tariff Decision and the Major Questions Doctrine
The scope of the doctrine is even more confused now than before.
The tariff decision is good news in terms of checking arbitrary presidential actions, but the opinions fell short in one important area. An important argument against the tariffs was based on the Major Questions Doctrine (or MQD). That doctrine applies whan a government action has “vast political and economic significance.” If the government claims that Congress gave it the power to take such an action, it must point to clear statutory language. The doctrine is controversial in part because no one is quite clear on its basis or when it applies. The tariff decision only made that worse. The Justices took many different positions on the doctrine, deepening the confusion.
CONTINUE READINGThe Affirmative Case for Finding Endangerment
Despite hairsplitting by the current EPA, finding endangerment is a no-brainer.
or EPA to decide that vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions aren’t harmful is iike NASA deciding that the earth isn’t round after all. Over the next year or two, lawyers will be picking over EPA’s detailed legal arguments. Let’s not get mired in the weeds. It’s crazy that this issue is even being raised.
In 2007, the Supreme Court told EPA to do two things: (1) consider whether GHGs endanger human health and welfare, and (2) if the answer is yes, regulate vehicle emissions of GHGs. That’s exactly what EPA did. Nothing has changed in the meantime.
The Color PURPA
A Win for Solar– And a Glimpse of Life After Chevron
The majority in a recent case — an Obama appointeet and a Trump appointee — ruled in favor of renewable energy. Even without Chevron deference, they were able to conclude that the statute favored solar producers. And unlike a win under Chevron, this one can’t be reversed by a more conservative agency — it’s etched in stone.
CONTINUE READINGNo, DOE, You Can’t Roll Back Product Efficiency Standards
Congress wanted greater energy efficiency over time and banned rollbacks.
The Department of Energy is proposing to rescind key energy efficiency requirements. It is beyond ironic that it is attempting to do so at a time when the President has proclaimed an energy emergency. Trump says the grid is struggling desperately to meet surging power demand. That’s a strange time to eliminate regulations that are saving energy. DOE’s action is also illegal, because the law in question has a provision prohibiting rollbacks. Congress wanted efficiency standards to get tougher over time and included an anti-rollback provision to make sure of that.
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 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.
