U.S. Supreme Court Archives - Page 9 of 16

U.S. Supreme Court

Defending EPA’s Authority to Fight Climate Change – at the Supreme Court

Sean Hecht and Ted Lamm co-author amicus brief on behalf of Clean Air Act expert Tom Jorling

This week, Sean Hecht and I filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA in defense of EPA’s authority to effectively regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Our client is Tom Jorling, a former Senate staffer and EPA official who was directly involved in drafting the Act …

Continue reading “Defending EPA’s Authority to Fight Climate Change – at the Supreme Court”

More on How the Vaccine Mandate Cases May Impact Climate Policy

How much is the Court likely to prune back EPA’s powers?

In a Friday post, I sketched some thoughts about how the Supreme Court’s vaccine mandate rulings might impact EPA’s power to control carbon emissions. I think it’s worth unpacking both the Court’s opinions a little more and the issues at stake in a pending climate change case, West Virginia v. EPA. The Court ruled in …

Continue reading “More on How the Vaccine Mandate Cases May Impact Climate Policy”

Today’s Vaccine Cases: Implications for Climate Change Regulation

Today’s ruling are (somewhat) good news in terms of West Virginia v. EPA?

Today, the Court’s conservative Justices split the difference in two cases involving vaccine mandates, striking down OSHA’s mandate but upholding a more limited mandate for healthcare workers. The cases also split the conservative Justices themselves, with three hardliners (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch) seeking a more activist ruling in the OSHA case and dissenting in the …

Continue reading “Today’s Vaccine Cases: Implications for Climate Change Regulation”

The Quagmire of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

The scope of federal jurisdiction over water bodies and wetlands remains as murky as ever.

The Biden Administration announced on Monday that it would not meet a February target date to issue a revised definition of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. It still plans to issue a revised definition later in the year. That sounds like a very technical issue. But it actually determines the extent to which …

Continue reading “The Quagmire of Clean Water Act Jurisdiction”

2022: The Year Ahead

Here are the five biggest things to watch for.

There will be a lot going on this year in the environmental sphere. I wanted to focus on a few big things to keep an eye on, rather than trying to give a long, comprehensive survey. Here are the five biggest things to watch for: Midterm elections. As of now, things are looking very good …

Continue reading “2022: The Year Ahead”

It’s Time to Repeal the Clean Power Plan

The CPP no longer serves any useful purpose, and keeping it on the books invites mischief by the Supreme Court.

The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was the Obama Administration’s signature climate effort. This 2015 regulation aimed to move state power grids away from coal and toward renewable energy. It immediately became ensnared in litigation and never went into effect. It’s now considered irrelevant for all practical purposes. Yet the Supreme Court is now set to …

Continue reading “It’s Time to Repeal the Clean Power Plan”

Five Reasons Why Juliana Stumbled

The legal deck was stacked against the “children’s lawsuit.”

Juliana has been a valiant effort by a group of young people to force the federal government to plan for stringent reductions in U.S. carbon emissions. As I wrote in a previous post, several well-regarded foreign courts have upheld claims that are similar in concept to the Juliana case. The U.S. legal system, however, provided …

Continue reading “Five Reasons Why Juliana Stumbled”

Major Questions About the Major Questions Doctrine

You may not have heard of this doctrine but it’s a big threat to innovative regulations.

Unless you’re deeply immersed in administrative law, you may not have heard of the major questions doctrine. It’s a legal theory that conservative judges have used with increasing rigor to block important regulatory initiatives. The doctrine places special obstacles on agency regulations of issues of “major economic and political significance.” In its initial outing, the …

Continue reading “Major Questions About the Major Questions Doctrine”

A Bad Week for Biden, and for Climate Action

First House progressives, and next conservative Justices, poked a stick in the spokes.

President Biden hoped to go to the international climate summit in Glasgow with momentum behind him. He wanted to reestablish US credibility with concrete progress on climate change. Instead, the ability of the US to take action on climate change is shrouded in doubt. Biden suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of members of …

Continue reading “A Bad Week for Biden, and for Climate Action”

Is the ‘Vaccine Mandate’ Legal?

Despite all the political huffing and puffing, Biden’s order has a solid legal basis.

Incensed critics are calling Biden’s proposed “vaccine mandate” an outrageous usurpation of power. They need to take a deep breath. It’s not really a vaccine mandate, the only statutory issue is procedural, and there’s no constitutional problem. Calling Biden’s order a vaccine mandate is misleading. It could just as well be considered a testing mandate …

Continue reading “Is the ‘Vaccine Mandate’ Legal?”

Is 2025 the Year of the Carbon Tax?

Carbon border adjustment mechanisms are increasingly the talk of Washington. UCLA Law’s Kimberly Clausing explains some of the options on the table.

Renewable Energy: A Timeline

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

Understanding 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.

Understanding Loper: The Grandfather Clause

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

Understanding Loper: The Primacy of Skidmore

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

$10 Billion Climate Bond Heads to the California Ballot

Prop 4 would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion toward safe drinking water and groundwater, wildfire and forest programs, and to combat sea level rise.

Understanding Loper: Delegation & Discretion

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

Playing fast and loose with reality

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

(Energy) Independence Day

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.

California can help meet its climate goals by removing SERP’s sunset date

By Molly Bruce, Dave Smith, Michael Kiparsky, Derek Hitchcock, Peter Van De Burgt, Sydney Chamberlin, Megan Cleveland

Losing Chevron: What Does It Mean for California?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright will not necessarily impact how California courts review our state agency determinations. But we’ll feel it in other ways.

U.S. Supreme Court

Sean Hecht and Ted Lamm co-author amicus brief on behalf of Clean Air Act expert Tom Jorling

How much is the Court likely to prune back EPA’s powers?

Today’s ruling are (somewhat) good news in terms of West Virginia v. EPA?

The scope of federal jurisdiction over water bodies and wetlands remains as murky as ever.

Here are the five biggest things to watch for.

The CPP no longer serves any useful purpose, and keeping it on the books invites mischief by the Supreme Court.

The legal deck was stacked against the “children’s lawsuit.”

You may not have heard of this doctrine but it’s a big threat to innovative regulations.

First House progressives, and next conservative Justices, poked a stick in the spokes.

Despite all the political huffing and puffing, Biden’s order has a solid legal basis.

TRENDING

Carbon border adjustment mechanisms are increasingly the talk of Washington. UCLA Law’s Kimberly Clausing explains some of the options on the table.

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

The real world effects may be limited. Or they may undercut presidential power, to the surprise of advocates of the unitary executive.

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

Prop 4 would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion toward safe drinking water and groundwater, wildfire and forest programs, and to combat sea level rise.

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.

By Molly Bruce, Dave Smith, Michael Kiparsky, Derek Hitchcock, Peter Van De Burgt, Sydney Chamberlin, Megan Cleveland

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright will not necessarily impact how California courts review our state agency determinations. But we’ll feel it in other ways.

Perplexed? Worried? Here’s a guide to a fraught area of law.

The Supreme Court has already grabbed power from agencies through the major questions doctrine.

We used to have the Chevron test? What test do we have now?

Today’s wind and solar resources didn’t come out of nowhere.

Hundreds of past federal cases relied on Chevron. They remain good law.

A previously obscure 1944 case will now be central to judicial review.

Something similar to Chevron deference may still apply to many (most?) regulations.

How the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions enable greater reliance on “alternative” facts

A post in which I surprise readers — and myself — with strong praise for George W. Bush.