Showing 29 results
Daniel Farber | March 1, 2023
Last December, the Biden administration issued a rule defining the scope of the federal government’s authority over streams and wetlands. Congressional Republicans vowed to overturn the rule, using a procedure created by the Congressional Review Act. If Congress is going to repeal something, it should be the Congressional Review Act rather than the Biden rule.
Ajulo Othow, Sidney A. Shapiro | January 11, 2023
This op-ed was originally published in the Winston-Salem (North Carolina) Journal and the Greensboro (North Carolina) News & Record. The Winston-Salem Journal recently reported that Walmart had joined environmental and climate advocates in opposition to Duke Energy’s proposed carbon reduction plan, which is now under review by the N.C. Energy Commission. In the clash of […]
Daniel Farber | January 10, 2023
There are U.S. Supreme Court cases going back a century or more dealing with what we would now consider environmental issues, such as preserving nature or air pollution. But when did the Court start seeing filthy rivers and smoky cities as embodiments of the same problem, despite their striking physical differences? And when did it start thinking of “wilderness” as a good thing rather than a failure to use available resources?
David Hunter, Shade Streeter, William Snape, III | September 1, 2022
Our hemisphere’s shared natural heritage is threatened. The Convention on Nature Protection and Wild Life Preservation is a low-risk, high-reward pathway for the Biden administration to strengthen our strategic relationships in the hemisphere.
Daniel Farber | August 8, 2022
What wetlands and waterbodies does the Clean Water Act protect? Congress failed to provide a clear answer when it passed the statute, and the issue has been a bone of contention ever since. The Biden administration is in the process of issuing a new regulation on the subject. Normally, you'd expect the Supreme Court to wait to jump in until then. Instead, the Court reached out to grab Sackett v. EPA, where landowners take a really extreme position on the subject. Not a good sign.
Minor Sinclair | June 14, 2022
I’m thrilled to share that the Center for Progressive Reform features prominently in the pages of a forthcoming anthology of last year’s best writing on environmental law. Three of five articles selected for inclusion in the 2022 edition of the anthology were written or co-written by our esteemed Member Scholars — law professors who generously donate their time and expertise to help us achieve our mission to create a more responsive and inclusive government, a healthier environment, and a just society. A fourth article was authored by a Member Scholar who is on leave from the center while serving in the Biden administration.
Daniel Farber | May 4, 2022
Soon after Trump took office, Republicans used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn sixteen Obama-era regulations. If they win control of the government in 2024, they'll undoubtedly do the same thing to Biden regulations. It behooves us, then, to understand the effect of these legislative interventions. A Ninth Circuit ruling last week in a case involving bear baiting, Safari Club v. Haaland sheds new light on this murky subject.
Daniel Farber | April 25, 2022
Last week, the White House undid an effort by the Trump administration to undermine the use of environmental impact statements. The prior rules had been in effect since 1978. Restoring the 1978 version was the right thing to do. The Trump rules arbitrarily limited the scope of the environmental effects that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can consider under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Their goal was clearly to prevent consideration of climate change.
John Knox | April 11, 2022
Introduced last month, the Advancing Human Rights-Centered International Conservation Act comes in the wake of a 2019 news investigation that described many instances of alleged murder, rape, and torture by park rangers against Indigenous people and local communities. The alleged abuses were perpetrated at parks supported by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which received millions of dollars in funding from the U.S. government.