U.S. Supreme Court
Grid Experts Weigh in on EPA’s Power Plant Emissions Rule
The U.S. Supreme Court denied an emergency stay in West Virginia v. EPA, a challenge to EPA’s rule. Our UCLA Law clinic submitted a brief on behalf of grid experts in the case at the D.C. Circuit.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized emissions standards for greenhouse gases from power plants under Clean Air Act, Section 111(d). The rule sets pollution limits for existing coal plants and some new gas plants based on carbon capture and sequestration. In West Virginia v. EPA, a spate of states and industry parties …
Continue reading “Grid Experts Weigh in on EPA’s Power Plant Emissions Rule”
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 READINGClimate Policy After the 2024 Election
In this UCLA Emmett Institute webinar, panelists discussed the climate implications of the 2024 election from the state, national, and international perspective.
Climate certainty. Legislative action. Whipsaw regulations. An exodus of civil servants. Chinese leadership despite being the world’s largest emitter. Those are a few of the possible outcomes of the Nov. 5 presidential election, according to our panelists. More than in any previous election, the two major candidates’ track records on environmental policies are well-established and …
Continue reading “Climate Policy After the 2024 Election”
CONTINUE READINGThe Case that Wouldn’t Die
The Juliana plaintiffs make a final effort to resurrect their case.
The district judge contemplates a wide-ranging trial about broad climate and energy policies, after which she would opine on their legality. The Supreme Court will likely think that putting an immense swathe of government policy on trial also violates the separation of powers — especially in a case where they are deeply skeptical of the underlying constitutional claim.
CONTINUE READINGClean Air and the Turbocharged Shadow Docket
Guest Contributors Sean Donahue & Megan Herzog write that coal advocates offer troubling new grounds for the Supreme Court to stay EPA’s carbon pollution standards.
The Supreme Court is currently considering eight emergency (or “shadow docket”) requests from coal advocates (coal-mining companies, coal-burning electricity generators, and allied State attorneys general led by West Virginia) to bar implementation of new EPA rules limiting carbon pollution from coal- and gas-burning power plants while legal challenges to the rules proceed—what is known as …
Continue reading “Clean Air and the Turbocharged Shadow Docket”
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding Loper: A Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing?
The real world effects may be limited. Or they may undercut presidential power, to the surprise of advocates of the unitary executive.
Because there are so many outstanding questions about the Court’s new approach to judicial review, we won’t know its practical impact for some time. Its symbolic impact as an affirmation of conservative ideology is more obvious.
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding Loper: The Grandfather Clause
Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.
To cushion the shock of abandoning Chevron, the Supreme Court created a safe harbor for past judicial decisions. This was well-advised. The Court itself applied Chevron at least seventy times, as did thousands of lower court decisions. The key question will be the scope of the grandfather clause. The Court’s discussion began by saying that …
Continue reading “Understanding Loper: The Grandfather Clause”
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding Loper: The Primacy of Skidmore
A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.
Some commentators have tended to write off Skidmore and assume that judges will ignore agency views after Loper Bright. That is a misreading of the Court’s opinions in Loper and in Skidmore itself.
CONTINUE READINGUnderstanding Loper: Delegation & Discretion
Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.
The Supreme Court took away Chevron deference, but it also recognized that Congress can give agencies the power to clarify statutes and fill in gaps.
CONTINUE READINGJudicial Review After Loper Bright
We used to have the Chevron test? What test do we have now?
Loper Bright has created a new two-part test for courts to apply when an agency has interpreted a statute. It’s not the same as Chevron, but it does have some family resemblance.
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
