Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court recently cleared the way for President Donald Trump to keep building his garish ballroom, complete with gilded columns, gold chandeliers, and a “drone-proof” roof. The decision might look like a one-off fight over historic preservation, but some legal scholars fear the blast zone is much wider. The real question is more fundamental: who gets to ask a federal court to stop an allegedly unlawful project?

Teaching Environmental Law in Context is a fantastic resource, not only for law professors, but for professors of environmental studies and other adjacent fields. I can’t begin to tell you all the number of times that my colleagues at the University of Wisconsin Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (as well as colleagues in Environmental Science, Community and Environmental Sociology, and Geography) have asked for a primer like this with respect to environmental law. I am asking our library to get this book right now.

On August 5, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, which is both a significant air pollution case and an interesting case study in how the U.S. Supreme Court has changed judicial review of agency actions. The case was brought by a group in Arvin, California, a small city near Bakersfield.

This is a hard moment for the work we care about. The rules that keep our air breathable, our water clean, our workplaces safe, and our government answerable to the people are under real pressure. Agencies are losing the authority to do their jobs. The idea that government should protect people when markets will not is being treated as if it were up for debate. And the communities that suffer most from pollution, unsafe work, and a warming climate are still the last ones invited into the rooms where the choices get made. I spent my childhood two blocks from a power plant grandfathered out of Clean Air Act protections in Texas and suffered from chronic bronchial infections while multiple family members and friends managed asthma. In law school, I learned to value the regulations and bureaucracy that could be made to protect people’s lives. So I am honored to join the Center’s work as executive director.

In this post and video, I discuss the 4th of July Clearwater incident in New York Harbor with Dan Farber, a law professor at UC-Berkeley, who specializes in constitutional and environmental law.

As the United States reaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we at the Center for Progressive Reform find ourselves reflecting on a history that is both extraordinary and in progress. We also recognize that this anniversary carries different meanings for different people. Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, puts it […]

On June 30, the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittee questioned Russell Vought, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Given the influential role that Vought has played in the Trump administration, both as a member and in shaping its policy agenda through Project 2025, the hearing provided a critical opportunity for conducting oversight.

In Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held legislative limitations on the president’s power to fire administrators of independent agencies to be unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that because administrative power is “executive,” the Chief Executive must have the power to hire and fire the people appointed to head up all government agencies. Through this categorical approach to its “separation of powers” doctrine, the Court denied Congress a role in determining how best to implement the laws it passes, even though a) the Constitution is silent on whether Congress can impose restrictions on firing administrative officials, b) the legislature is a co-equal branch of government, and c) Congress is as or more accountable to the voters than the president.

With its June 29 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority takes another step toward building an imperial presidency on the ashes of the U.S. Constitution’s vision of a democratic republic. This clash over removal authority of independent agency heads was always meant as just the opening volley in this broader war. The end of the independent civil service, and even of administrative law itself, no longer seem improbable. The only real stopping point appears to be what the business community will tolerate, as today’s related decision in Trump v. Cook demonstrates.