U.S. Supreme Court
Five Lessons from the Tariff Case
What can the case teach us about litigating environmental cases against Trump?
Learning Resources v. Trump, the recent tariff ruling, doesn’t say anything direct about environmental cases. But there are a series of useful lessons for environmental litigators. One obvious one is that the conservatives aren’t all “in the tank” for Trump (though Alito and maybe Thomas seem have gone pretty MAGA). Trump’s nasty insults of the conservatives who ruled against him probably won’t bring them back onto the Trump train. His effusive praise for the three conservatives who voted for the tariffs may even increase frictions within the supermajority. Here are five more lessons.
CONTINUE READINGBring Back the Legislative Veto!!
Restoring Presidential-Congressional balance also restores the Constitution’s vision of government — and could pay environmental dividends
One line that stood out in the Supreme Court’s opinion in the tariff case, Learning Resources v Trump, was this one from Neil Gorsuch: Once this Court reads a doubtful statute as granting the executive branch a given power, that power may prove almost impossible for Congress to retrieve. Any President keen on his own authority (and, …
Continue reading “Bring Back the Legislative Veto!!”
CONTINUE READINGThe Tariff Decision and the Major Questions Doctrine
The scope of the doctrine is even more confused now than before.
The tariff decision is good news in terms of checking arbitrary presidential actions, but the opinions fell short in one important area. An important argument against the tariffs was based on the Major Questions Doctrine (or MQD). That doctrine applies whan a government action has “vast political and economic significance.” If the government claims that Congress gave it the power to take such an action, it must point to clear statutory language. The doctrine is controversial in part because no one is quite clear on its basis or when it applies. The tariff decision only made that worse. The Justices took many different positions on the doctrine, deepening the confusion.
CONTINUE READINGThe Overlooked Precedent Supporting EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
Even Roberts and Scalia agreed that Mass. v. EPA is the law
An important precedent has been overlooked in the coverage of the Trump EPA’s repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The 2009 finding relied was based on , in which the Court had held that the Clean Air Act covers air pollution and directed EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases are harmful. One reason to worry about the litigation is that the conservatives Justices all dissented from Massachusetts v. EPA over the repeal. But there’s another equally important precedent: American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP). That ruling was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, so it may carry more weight.
CONTINUE READINGCan the Endangerment Finding be Repealed? Not While MASS. v. EPA Still Lives.
On any fair reading of Justice Stevens’s opinion, the Endangerment Finding is valid.
EPA claims that its justifications for repealing the Endangerment Finding are consistent with the ruling in Mass. v. EPA. That’s just not true.
CONTINUE READINGThe Affirmative Case for Finding Endangerment
Despite hairsplitting by the current EPA, finding endangerment is a no-brainer.
or EPA to decide that vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions aren’t harmful is iike NASA deciding that the earth isn’t round after all. Over the next year or two, lawyers will be picking over EPA’s detailed legal arguments. Let’s not get mired in the weeds. It’s crazy that this issue is even being raised.
In 2007, the Supreme Court told EPA to do two things: (1) consider whether GHGs endanger human health and welfare, and (2) if the answer is yes, regulate vehicle emissions of GHGs. That’s exactly what EPA did. Nothing has changed in the meantime.
Is Antitrust Unconstitutional?
It violates the “Major Questions Doctrine” — which reveals the doctrine’s bankruptcy
Last week, I argued that the Unitary Executive Theory does not really exist: it is simply a way for the Supremes to impose their policy preferences, to be discarded if inconvenient. In this week’s episode, we can look at the “Major Questions Doctrine,” which purportedly holds that agencies must point to “clear congressional authorization” for …
Continue reading “Is Antitrust Unconstitutional?”
CONTINUE READINGPesticides, Cancer, and Failure-to-Warn at the Supreme Court
The pro-business Roberts Court considers whether to preempt state law failure-to-warn claims. Will corporate and agency malfeasance on glyphosate matter?
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court granted cert in an important case involving a preemption question under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (aka FIFRA). The question presented: “Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning?” The case involves glyphosate, which is …
Continue reading “Pesticides, Cancer, and Failure-to-Warn at the Supreme Court”
CONTINUE READINGDoes the Unitary Executive Theory Exist? Not really.
It’s just another ideological confection to impose right-wing policies: the Supreme Court’s argument last week shows it
At Legal Planet, we often bemoan and gnash our teeth at the Unitary Executive Theory, which supposedly holds that because “the Executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States,” Congress can not circumscribe the President’s removal authority or even his ability to manage federal agencies in any way. But last week, …
Continue reading “Does the Unitary Executive Theory Exist? Not really.”
CONTINUE READINGWhat Critics of the Unitary Executive Missed
This conservative theory has damaged democracy in unexpected ways.
You would think that some of the conservatives on the Supreme Court would start to see that their ideas about how to run the government are flawed. Sadly, there’s no evidence that they’ve seen the light. It’s true that they seem to be willing to make an ad hoc exception for the Federal Reserve, showing the truth of the saying that everyone’s scared of the bond market. But other than that, they seem happy to allow a single person’s whims to control the government. We’re going to need to figure out some new approaches if we want to have a government that implements in the law in a rational, even-handed way.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
