Supreme Court
Supreme Court Deals Obama Administration Blow in Clean Water Act Case
Supreme Court allows lawsuits early in Clean Water Act permitting process, as Justice Kennedy ominously questions the Act’s reach
The Supreme Court today dealt another blow to the Obama administration in a Clean Water Act case. The Court’s unanimous opinion in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., No. 15-290, addressed the finality of an Army Corps “approved jurisdictional determination” (JD) on whether a particular parcel of property contains “waters of the …
Continue reading “Supreme Court Deals Obama Administration Blow in Clean Water Act Case”
CONTINUE READINGThe Next Justice and the Fate of the Clean Water Act
A comment by Justice Kennedy reminds us of just how much is at stake.
Every once in a while, we get reminded of just how much damage the conservative Justices could wreak on environmental law. Last week, Justice Kennedy created shock waves with a casual comment during oral argument. In a case that seemed to involved only a technical issue about administrative procedure, he dropped the suggestion that the …
Continue reading “The Next Justice and the Fate of the Clean Water Act”
CONTINUE READINGUnleashing the Lower Courts
Justice Scalia’s death greatly expands the maneuvering room for liberal judges.
There’s already been a lot written about how Justice Scalia’s untimely death will affect pending cases, not to mention speculation about the possible nominees to replace him. Less attention has been given to the effect on the lower courts. Yet Justice Scalia’s departure gives liberal judges in lower courts more freedom than they’ve had in …
Continue reading “Unleashing the Lower Courts”
CONTINUE READINGDoes Sri Srinivasan’s Clean Power Plan Role on the D.C. Circuit Panel Hurt His Nomination Chances?
He may feel compelled to recuse himself, lowering the odds that the CPP is upheld in the Court of Appeals
Some environmentalists are already criticizing Sri Srinivasan’s environmental credentials because as a lawyer at O’Melveny & Meyers he defended Exxon Mobil and Rio Tinto, a mining company, in cases alleging human rights abuses in Indonesia and Papau New Guinea. He also represented Enron villain Jeff Skilling. But I wonder if Srinivasan’s nomination raises a different, …
CONTINUE READINGAn Inconvenient Logic
Justice Scalia’s argument in the FERC case contradicts his attack on Obamacare.
They say consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. If so, Justice Scalia is in good shape. His argument last week in the FERC argument was totally inconsistent with his argument against the constitutionality of Obamacare. Both cases involve change in the incentives to enter a market in the first place. In the Obamacare case, …
Continue reading “An Inconvenient Logic”
CONTINUE READINGBig Win For Clean Technology In The Supreme Court Today
Court validates federal rule to encourage more efficient electricy usage
The future of a clean electricity grid will require more decentralization based on clean technology, like solar and energy storage. Large industrial customers are investing in these technologies and also signing up to moderate their electricity demand in response to larger grid needs (i.e. reducing usage when electricity becomes expensive and dirty to produce). Smaller …
Continue reading “Big Win For Clean Technology In The Supreme Court Today”
CONTINUE READINGWhy legal challenges to the EPA Clean Power Plan will end up at the Supreme Court
Cross-posted from The Conversation. Even before President Obama announced the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan on August 3 to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, there were a number of legal challenges to block the law at its proposal stage – none of them successful. Earlier this year, the DC Circuit Court told …
Continue reading “Why legal challenges to the EPA Clean Power Plan will end up at the Supreme Court”
CONTINUE READINGMichigan v. EPA: Policymaking in the Guise of Statutory Interpretation
In Michigan v. EPA, the majority followed its own policy views, not those in the statute.
The majority opinion by Justice Scalia has gotten most of the attention. Most notably, he wrote that “[o]ne would not say that it is even rational, never mind “appropriate”, to impose billions of dollars in economic costs for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.” Indeed, “[n]o regulation is ‘appropriate’ if it does significantly …
Continue reading “Michigan v. EPA: Policymaking in the Guise of Statutory Interpretation”
CONTINUE READINGInterpreting Michigan v. EPA
The opinion seems likely to have very limited repercussions.
In bringing the mercury rule to the Supreme Court, industry was hoping for a ruling that EPA had to balance costs and benefits (and could only include benefits relating to mercury). What they got was far less than that. Here, I’d like to address some key questions about the opinion. 1. When does EPA have …
Continue reading “Interpreting Michigan v. EPA”
CONTINUE READINGMercury Rising: The Court Reverses EPA’s Regulation
This was not a great decision for EPA, but it could have been much worse.
The Court has just now decided the Michigan case, involving EPA’s mercury regulation. As Ann Carlson explained in an earlier post, a lot was at stake in the case. The Court ruled 5-4 against EPA. This passage seems to be key to the Court’s reasoning: One would not say that it is even rational, never mind …
Continue reading “Mercury Rising: The Court Reverses EPA’s Regulation”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
