U.S. Supreme Court
The Forgotten Constitution
There’s a lot more than the “executive power” in there.
To hear Trump & Co., you might think that the Constitution was one sentence long, with that sentence vesting the executive power in the President. That’s the theory behind his efforts to remake the government – including environmental regulation – single-handedly. But there’s a lot more in there. Much of that forgotten language is directly relevant to the presidential actions that are now shaking the government, including environmental governance.
CONTINUE READINGViolations of Free Speech at EPA
EPA employees were within their rights with the dissent letter they wrote.
I know it must be a shock to the Trump Administration that even lowly civil servants — I’m sure they would put the emphasis on “servants” — have rights that Important People like them are obliged to respect. But we still live in a democracy, and as the Supreme Court once said, government employees don’t leave their First Amendment rights at the door.
CONTINUE READINGThe Failed Effort to Protect Workers from Toxics: A Labor Day Reflection
The OSHA law called for rigorous regulation. It never happened.
To put it in a nutshell, the political base for workplace toxic regulation eroded along with America’s industrial unions. That deprived OSHA of the congressional support it needed to thrive. In the absence of a union revival, the right of workers to be free from toxic hazards is likely to remain an unfulfilled dream.
CONTINUE READINGWhich Effects Count?
Conservatives argue that only the effects that they care about should matter.
Not that long ago, conservatives demanded that the government balance costs and benefits. They still do, but with a twist: They demand special limits on consideration of environmental effects. But that makes no sense. Whatever rules we have about costs should apply to all types of costs, and the same with benefits. The result of the skewing the analysis is, not surprisingly, that we get conservative results more often.
CONTINUE READINGEmergency Powers Aren’t What They Used to Be
In the post-WW2 era, courts bent over backwards to accomodate emergency actions. Not true today, as Trump is finding out.
In mid-century America, emergency powers were truly potent. But those days are gone. In his two terms as President, Trump has declared 21 national emergencies, including eight since January 20. This glut of “emergencies” can only further discredit the whole concept. He and his advisors seem to see those as creating nearly magical legal powers, allowing them to deport people without hearings, run roughshod over environmental safeguards, and impose tariffs willy-nilly. They are probably in line for a disappointment. Judges are no longer in awe of emergency powers.
CONTINUE READINGThe Assault on NEPA: A Threat Assessment
National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA is under multiple attacks. Which are the most serious?
NEPA, the law governing environmental impact statements, is under concerted assault from Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. As we will see, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Seven County Infrastructure Case is probably the biggest problem. Notably, the debate over NEPA has taken place without much hard data about its effectiveness or costs, so everyone seems free to make their own assumptions.
CONTINUE READINGThe Unitary Executive Theory As Government-Smasher
The Supreme Court’s Imperial Presidency drive isn’t formalism: it is calculated to destroy the state.
It is a misnomer to discuss the current Supreme Court’s “jurisprudence” on anything, as if it has an approach to any legal question other than, “because we said so, libtard.” But in the wake of the Court’s lawless and arbitrary use of the shadow docket to destroy statutes and precedents for the purpose of giving …
Continue reading “The Unitary Executive Theory As Government-Smasher”
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 READINGDon’t Panic About the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Universal Injunctions
The Court left open a variety of workarounds. At least for the now.
In a case involving birthright citizenship, Trump v. CASA, the Court limited the power of judges to issue universal injunctions that protect everyone subject to an illegal government policy. President Trump hailed this outcome as a great victory, and it does provide more maneuvering room for him and future presidents. But the Court’s reasoning does not implicate most judicial rulings about the legality of regulations. The Court also left open some important questions that will be furiously litigated in the lower courts or the Supreme Court itself.
CONTINUE READINGWhat’s the Harm?
Tentative thoughts on Trump Administration’s proposed repeal of the ESA regulation defining harm
The administration has proposed revoking the definition of harm in the regulations implementing Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 9 is the section of the ESA that prohibits taking a member of a listed species. The change is significant because that definition of harm included, in some circumstances, actions that modify the …
Continue reading “What’s the Harm?”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
