Litigation
Huge Snub for Big Oil at the Supreme Court
Oil companies failed to persuade the justices to shield them from the growing number of state lawsuits seeking damages for the harms caused by climate change.
Big Oil has failed to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to shield it from numerous state climate lawsuits filed across the country seeking damages for the harms caused by climate change — harms like the historic, supercharged urban fires burning in Los Angeles. The justices held a conference on Friday, January 10 to determine whether …
Continue reading “Huge Snub for Big Oil at the Supreme Court”
CONTINUE READINGWhat to Expect When You’re Expecting Trump: Looking Ahead to 2025
Before even taking office, Trump has confirmed that “normality” is out the window.
Trump’s strategy involves appointing inexperienced administrators and to alienate or eliminate the experienced public servants who could help them implement their policies effectively.The good news is that Trump has not learned the lessons of his first administration and continues to think that ideology and bravado can substitute for competence. The courts are likely to tell him otherwise.
CONTINUE READINGGood & Bad Environmental News From the U.S. Supreme Court
Escalating Legal Attacks on California’s Longstanding Clean Air Act “Waiver” Authority
This past week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued important orders in two closely-related environmental cases previously decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Last Friday the justices granted review in Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, agreeing to decide whether fossil fuel manufacturers have legal standing to challenge an …
Continue reading “Good & Bad Environmental News From the U.S. Supreme Court”
CONTINUE READINGEPA Grants California’s Waivers for Clean Cars and Clean Trucks
By finally granting the Advanced Clean Car II waiver, the agency just undercut Trump’s planned attack on electric vehicles.
EPA just made the incoming Trump Administration’s efforts to stop the move toward clean, zero emission vehicles a whole lot tougher. And ironically, the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision overturning deference to agency actions, Loper Bright v Raimondo, may help California in any litigation over the legitimacy of the waiver request. EPA finally granted California …
Continue reading “EPA Grants California’s Waivers for Clean Cars and Clean Trucks”
CONTINUE READINGDeal or No Deal?
Should Congress pass EPRA?
This is the second in a series of posts on permitting reform. The first post is here. Given the provisions of the Energy Permitting Reform Act (EPRA), should Congress enact it as it stands now? Answering that question is tricky, in part because it depends both on uncertain political and administrative action, as well as …
Continue reading “Deal or No Deal?”
CONTINUE READINGShould We Do Permitting Reform?
What is at stake with the Manchin bill.
As Congress wraps up its lame duck session before the new Congress and President arrive in January, there is a lot of debate about whether to move forward on permitting reform within a quickly shrinking window of time. The basis of debate is the Energy Permitting Reform Act (EPRA) co-sponsored by Senators Manchin and Barrasso. …
Continue reading “Should We Do Permitting Reform?”
CONTINUE READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court: The Seven Counties Oral Argument
Some arguments surfaced in the discussion that the Court would do well to ignore.
Several arguments popped up in the Supreme Court’s discussion of a major NEPA case that appealed to at least some of the Justices. We think that they would do well to rethink them. Each of the arguments distracts attention from what ought to be the key question: what impacts should the agency take into account in making its decision? We hope, when it comes time to draft opinions, the Justices will think through the arguments a little more fully and head in a different direction.
CONTINUE READINGNEPA in the Supreme Court — On the Eve of Oral Argument
Some thoughts about how the Court should define some limits on indirect effects.
Our paper on the proper scope of NEPA places heavy emphasis on foreseeability, but in an expanded version of the paper we consider some unusual situations where additional factors come into play. This additional analysis makes clear important limits on NEPA scope that we think address at least some of the concerns that have (appropriately) been raised about ever-expanding NEPA review and the risk that it will hamper efforts to develop needed infrastructure.
CONTINUE READINGSix Things to Know about Rights of Nature
More than 500 Rights of Nature laws and policies have been passed globally. Here’s how to make sense of this nascent movement — or movements.
This Fall, I have been co-teaching a course on Rights of Nature with the historian Jill Lepore. This is the first time either of us have taught the subject and it has proven a wonderful opportunity to explore with our students this emerging movement — one that some have praised as “A Legal Revolution That …
Continue reading “Six Things to Know about Rights of Nature”
CONTINUE READINGNEPA and Loper Deference (Part II)
Guest contributor Justin Pidot outlines what losing CEQ’s NEPA authority means for interagency coordination and efficiency.
Dan provided a terrific overview of the legal issues involved in the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision holding that CEQ lacks authority to promulgate regulations and, therefore, that the regulations governing implementation of NEPA across the government for decades are ultra vires. I want to offer some additional observations focused on the potential practical implications. First, …
Continue reading “NEPA and Loper Deference (Part II)”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
