Trump Administration
How To Beat A Jackass
Trump’s destruction of the federal government poses a hard question: how to quickly stand up robust institutions?
Sam Rayburn served nearly a half-century as a Congressmember, and still holds the record for the longest tenure as Speaker of the House. So he knew a thing or two about government. One of his aphorisms speaks powerfully to our age: “Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build …
Continue reading “How To Beat A Jackass”
CONTINUE READINGThe Environment and the Rule of Law
Without the rule of law, environmental protection has no chance of succeeding.
It’s no coincidence that the environment and the rule of law are both targets, because environmental protection is particularly dependent on the legal system for support. There is a lot of wisdom to the slogan, “The Earth needs a good lawyer.”
CONTINUE READINGWhat does ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Mean in California?
The Drain is a weekly roundup of environmental and climate news from Legal Planet.
A court fight over oil drilling off the coast of Refugio State Beach near Santa Barbara. Proposals to drill around public schools in Ojai and Los Osos. The potential for oil operations directly adjacent to popular national monuments. New risks to our ecosystems that sustain imperiled species like the California condor. This is what “Drill, …
Continue reading “What does ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Mean in California?”
CONTINUE READINGWhen Did Property Rights Drop Off the Conservative Agenda?
Property used to be a central conservative concern. Not so much these days.
One of the pillars of conservative thought used to be protection of property rights. But along with belief in free markets, it now seems to have lost its place of pride. The word “property” doesn’t even appear in the 2024 Republican platform. And I can’t remember Trump ever speaking about property rights.
CONTINUE READINGShortchanging the Environment While Making NEPA More Chaotic
Trump replaced a coherent set of rules governing the executive branch with a welter of agency-specific regulations.
In one of Trump’s first executive orders, he eliminated a centralized system that Jimmy Carter initially set up to issue regulations governing environmental impact statements. Instead, he called on each agency to issue its own regulations, which seems to have caused the predictable amount of confusion. There seems to be little rhyme or reason in the variations
CONTINUE READINGA Very Bad House Vehicle Pollution Bill
The Fuel Emissions Freedom Act may be a stunt, but it’s worth examining
It can be hard to keep track amid all the hair-raising developments in Congress and at the Supreme Court, but last week, a group of House Republicans led by Roger Williams of Texas introduced the Fuel Emissions Freedom Act, hot on the heels of the purported (illegal) termination of California’s vehicle emissions standard waiver. This freedom-to-pollute …
Continue reading “A Very Bad House Vehicle Pollution Bill”
CONTINUE READINGThe Quiet Erosion of Federal Legal Internships
Guest Contributor Emma Rose Shore, a UCLA Law student, reflects on the current administration’s attack on civil servants and the cancellation of summer internships.
One morning last October, I got really exciting news. After an interview with a senior attorney at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance, I was offered a position in the National Environmental Training Institute’s Summer Honors Program (NETI). My giddiness must have been obvious, because the interviewer asked if I wanted to …
Continue reading “The Quiet Erosion of Federal Legal Internships “
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Wrap-Up)
Trump’s EPA says carbon emissions from U.S. power plants are too insignificant to regulate.
U.S. power plants emit 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, a little less than the entire country of Russia. The Trump Administration is proposing to end all regulation of carbon emissions by power plants, on the theory that these emissions should be considered insignificant. They have some complicated legal arguments , but the arguments break down the more closely you look at them.
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Part III)
How did EPA get to the absurd conclusion that 1.5 billion tons of carbon emissions aren’t significant? Well might you ask.
There is a very good chance that a court would strike down a EPA’s current finding that carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector are too insignificant to regulate. EPA’s effort to explain its ultimate conclusion rests on a hodgepodge of poorly analyzed considerations, which obviously have been reverse engineered to lead to EPA’s preferred conclusion.
CONTINUE READINGThe Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Part II)
To justify a decision not to regulate CO2 from power plants, EPA had to twist statutory language beyond all recognition.
According to EPA, carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector are too insignificant to warrant regulation. This is a bizarre conclusion: U.S. power sector’s emissions are around 6.5 billion tons, just below Russia’s total emissions from all sectors. To reach this conclusion, EPA has proposed a novel reading of the Clean Air Act. In EPA’s view, before it could regulate those emissions, it would first have to make a formal finding that they “cause or significantly contribute” to climate change, and (2) that this has to be judged on the basis of the sector’s percentage of total global carbon emissions. The statute doesn’t say either of those things.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
