Supreme Court
Five Lessons from the Tariff Case
What can the case teach us about litigating environmental cases against Trump?
Learning Resources v. Trump, the recent tariff ruling, doesn’t say anything direct about environmental cases. But there are a series of useful lessons for environmental litigators. One obvious one is that the conservatives aren’t all “in the tank” for Trump (though Alito and maybe Thomas seem have gone pretty MAGA). Trump’s nasty insults of the conservatives who ruled against him probably won’t bring them back onto the Trump train. His effusive praise for the three conservatives who voted for the tariffs may even increase frictions within the supermajority. Here are five more lessons.
CONTINUE READINGThe Overlooked Precedent Supporting EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
Even Roberts and Scalia agreed that Mass. v. EPA is the law
An important precedent has been overlooked in the coverage of the Trump EPA’s repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The 2009 finding relied was based on , in which the Court had held that the Clean Air Act covers air pollution and directed EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases are harmful. One reason to worry about the litigation is that the conservatives Justices all dissented from Massachusetts v. EPA over the repeal. But there’s another equally important precedent: American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP). That ruling was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, so it may carry more weight.
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.
Pesticides, Cancer, and Failure-to-Warn at the Supreme Court
The pro-business Roberts Court considers whether to preempt state law failure-to-warn claims. Will corporate and agency malfeasance on glyphosate matter?
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court granted cert in an important case involving a preemption question under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (aka FIFRA). The question presented: “Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning?” The case involves glyphosate, which is …
Continue reading “Pesticides, Cancer, and Failure-to-Warn at the Supreme Court”
CONTINUE READINGThe Trump Administration is Squandering Our Natural Heritage
Proposed Endangered Species Act regulations are designed to stifle protections and provide developers even more power.
The world’s ecosystems have been subject to an increasingly dangerous cocktail of stressors from land and ocean over-development, invasive species, and pollution. But rather than stem the tide of these harms, the Trump administration has resurrected several regulatory changes to the Endangered Species Act designed to stifle species’ protections and provide land developers even more power to …
Continue reading “The Trump Administration is Squandering Our Natural Heritage”
CONTINUE READINGWhat Critics of the Unitary Executive Missed
This conservative theory has damaged democracy in unexpected ways.
You would think that some of the conservatives on the Supreme Court would start to see that their ideas about how to run the government are flawed. Sadly, there’s no evidence that they’ve seen the light. It’s true that they seem to be willing to make an ad hoc exception for the Federal Reserve, showing the truth of the saying that everyone’s scared of the bond market. But other than that, they seem happy to allow a single person’s whims to control the government. We’re going to need to figure out some new approaches if we want to have a government that implements in the law in a rational, even-handed way.
CONTINUE READINGA Procedural Snarl in the Oil Patch
Can oil companies use World War II contracts to vault from state to federal court in cases about present-day coastal damage?
As a matter of common sense, however, it’s hard to see why oil production activities that would not otherwise be considered “federal” should change their statute because the producers also happen to own refineries — especially since in some instances it appears that all the oil from one of their fields might be going to a different refinery anyway. But textualist judges aren’t necessarily attended to common sense.
CONTINUE READINGThe Tariff Case & Environmental Law
The Court’s ruling could open doors legally for some future environmental actions.
In passing a new statute, is Congress endorsing judicial rulings under the old one? Do restrictions on the regulatory powers of administrative agencies apply to foreign affairs or Presidential actions? Can courts review a President’s emergency actions? The oral argument in the Trump tariff case will provide clues into the Justice’s thinking on these key issues. The ultimate decision will have implications on other topics like environmental law. Here’s a roadmap to the issues.
CONTINUE READINGEmergency Powers Aren’t What They Used to Be
In the post-WW2 era, courts bent over backwards to accomodate emergency actions. Not true today, as Trump is finding out.
In mid-century America, emergency powers were truly potent. But those days are gone. In his two terms as President, Trump has declared 21 national emergencies, including eight since January 20. This glut of “emergencies” can only further discredit the whole concept. He and his advisors seem to see those as creating nearly magical legal powers, allowing them to deport people without hearings, run roughshod over environmental safeguards, and impose tariffs willy-nilly. They are probably in line for a disappointment. Judges are no longer in awe of emergency powers.
CONTINUE READINGThe Assault on NEPA: A Threat Assessment
National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA is under multiple attacks. Which are the most serious?
NEPA, the law governing environmental impact statements, is under concerted assault from Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. As we will see, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Seven County Infrastructure Case is probably the biggest problem. Notably, the debate over NEPA has taken place without much hard data about its effectiveness or costs, so everyone seems free to make their own assumptions.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
