Administrative Law
NEPA 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 READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court (Part II)
Here’s why the Supreme Court should reject radical arguments for limiting environmental impact statements.
Our last post explained the background of the Seven Counties NEPA case, which is currently pending in the Supreme Court. Today, we discuss the radical arguments that have been made in the case and why they should be rejected. NEPA requires that agencies consider the environmental effects of their projects, but the petitioners raise hairsplitting arguments to exclude obvious effects due to technicalities. Pleas for revising the law should be made to Congress, not to the Supreme Court.
CONTINUE READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court (Part I)
A pending case could mean radical retrenchment of a foundational environmental law.
In what could turn out to be another loss for environmental protection in the Supreme Court, the Court is about to decide a major case about the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, has important implications for issues such as whether NEPA covers climate change impacts.
CONTINUE READINGThe Morning After
Given Trump’s victory, what can be done to save the planet?
wice before in this century, enemies of environmental protection have taken the helm. After taking office, Bush embraced fossil fuels, opposed climate action, and weakened environmental regulations. Trump’s first term made Bush seem like a tree hugger, and his second term may be even worse. The strategies we’ve used in the past are still applicable, though circumstances have changed.
CONTINUE READINGWhy is EPA “Faceless”?
People complain about faceless bureaucrats. At least in part, that could be fixed.
How many people can name the head of EPA or even know the title of that office? About 5% of the population, would be my guess. Apart from Scott Pruitt, who became famous for his $20,000 phone booth, few people outside of the field could name any previous holder of the office.
CONTINUE READINGThe Election, Vehicle Emissions, and State Climate Plans
If the California car waiver survives a possible Trump presidency, we may have the overruling of Chevron to thank.
If one single thing about the election keeps state environmental regulators up at night, it’s how much a Trump victory would impact their ability to cut transportation emissions. As it turns out, Trump’s leverage would be reduced, ironically enough, because his conservative Supreme Court appointees helped overrule the Chevron doctrine. Trump can still cause a …
Continue reading “The Election, Vehicle Emissions, and State Climate Plans”
CONTINUE READINGMrs. Palsgraf, Meet Enviromental Law
A case involving a freakish accident with fireworks casts a big shadow in environmental law.
Today in my first-year Torts class, I teach the Palsgraf case, one of those cases that every lawyer knows by heart. More about Palsgraf in a moment. It’s a tort case, so it won’t surprise you that oil companies use similar arguments against having to pay damages for climate change. But it may be more …
Continue reading “Mrs. Palsgraf, Meet Enviromental Law”
CONTINUE READINGThe Contract with America
Or, as some critics called it, “the Contract ON America.”
The Contract with America was the brainchild of Newt Gingrich. It was a turning point in American politics: moving the GOP from compromise to confrontation, nationalizing what had previously been locally oriented House races, and shifting the GOP far to the right. There’s a reason they call Gingrich the man who broke Congress.
CONTINUE READINGThe Libertarian Critique of Trump’s “Schedule F”
As it turns out, you can hate BOTH government regulation and Trump’s assault on the “deep state.”
Installing inexperienced ideologues in the executive branch won’t accomplish anything useful and would only make it harder to implement deregulatory policies. The main effect of Schedule F would be gridlock rather than policy change
CONTINUE READINGThe Zombie Myth of Job-Killing Regulations
Some ideas never die, no matter how much evidence piles up against them.
With the Labor Day weekend coming up, let’s talk about jobs. Some myths are like zombies in two ways. They refuse to lie down and die, not matter what you do. And if you aren’t careful, they can eat your brain. An example is the idea that environmental regulation kills jobs. Tragically, this brain worm …
Continue reading “The Zombie Myth of Job-Killing Regulations”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
