Administrative Law

The D.C. Circuit and the Biden Power Plant Rule

Regulating inside the fenceline

The court’s denial of a stay is very good news for EPA

The D.C. Circuit frequently denies stays, but this ruling was notable for three reasons: It allows an important climate change regulation to go into effect; it clarified an important legal doctrine; and it has a good chance of being upheld on appeal.

CONTINUE READING

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.

This post is the last in a weeklong series on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Loper Bright case. The ruling caused much rejoicing among conservatives who foretold the death of the administrative state. Among liberals, there was much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. No one focused on the nuanced doctrine that the Court …

CONTINUE READING

Understanding Loper: The Grandfather Clause

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

To cushion the shock of abandoning Chevron, the Supreme Court created a safe harbor for past judicial decisions. This was well-advised. The Court itself applied Chevron at least seventy times, as did thousands of lower court decisions. The key question will be the scope of the grandfather clause. The Court’s discussion began by saying that …

CONTINUE READING

Understanding Loper: The Primacy of Skidmore

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

Some commentators have tended to write off Skidmore and assume that judges will ignore agency views after Loper Bright. That is a misreading of the Court’s opinions in Loper and in Skidmore itself.

CONTINUE READING

Understanding 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 READING

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

Many regulatory clearances like permits aim to guard against projects that pose harm to the environment. However, permitting can also undercut environmental restoration efforts. While restoration is designed to remedy environmental harms and improve resilience to climate change, permitting can substantially increase project costs and slow or altogether impede environmentally beneficial projects. Striking an effective …

CONTINUE READING

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.

CONTINUE READING

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

The Supreme Court & Interstate Pollution

It was puzzling that the Court agreed to hear the case. How has it ruled? And why?

Months ago, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an “emergency” request to stay EPA’s new rule regulating interstate air pollution.  Like most observers, I was puzzled that the Court was bothering with the case before the D.C. Circuit even had a chance to consider the merits of the challenges. Months later, the Court has finally …

CONTINUE READING

The 2023 NEPA Rewrite and the Supreme Court’s New Climate Case

NEPA isn’t a common law subject. What the statute says matters more than pre-2023 judicial opinions.

When it amended NEPA in 2023, Congress squarely rejected language that would have constricted the definition of environmental impacts. The Supreme Court needs to give that language full effect, not obsess about the meaning of pre-2023 judicial opinions.The Supreme Court shouldn’t give advocates of narrowing NEPA a victory that they were unable to get through the legislative process.

CONTINUE READING

TRENDING