Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court will test how flexible the EPA and states can be in regulating water pollution under the Clean Water Act when it hears oral argument in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency on October 16. This case asks the court to decide whether federal regulators can issue permits that are effectively broad orders not to violate water quality standards, or instead may only specify the concentrations of individual pollutants that permit holders can release into water bodies.

T.S. Eliot was wrong. April is not the “cruellest month.” June is. In slightly over two weeks at the end of June 2024, the United States Supreme Court made mass murder easier, criminalized homelessness, partially decriminalized insurrection, ignored air pollution and climate change by curtailing agency actions, made it more difficult to fine securities and investment frauds, and deregulated political corruption while failing to affirmatively protect women with possibly fatal pregnancies. To this list, add the Court’s July 1, 2024, ruling effectively giving Donald Trump a pathway to an authoritarian presidency by delaying his criminal trials and then, as extralegal protection, effectively immunizing him from the worst of possible crimes. How did we get here? Rena Steinzor's new book, American Apocalypse, makes an important contribution to the literature examining the Right by bringing together several movements that have landed us where we are today.

A government that recognizes that it has an affirmative responsibility to address social and economic harms that threaten the stability of our democracy. An empowered and well-resourced administrative state that helps carry out this responsibility by, among other things, collaborating with affected members of the public, particularly members of structurally marginalized communities, while marshaling its own independent expertise. We believe that these are some of the core principles that should make up a progressive vision of an administrative state.

The summer of 2024 will be remembered for many things, but here at the Center for Progressive Reform, what most struck us was that it was the year that the administrative state broke through into public consciousness. From the unexpected virality of, and backlash against, Project 2025 — a massive right-wing legal manifesto as aggressive as it was arcane — to the Supreme Court regulatory rulings that made headlines for weeks, this year’s political news drove home that the work we do to protect the environment, the workforce, and public health matters very much to we, the people when these things are under attack. In this context, we approach the task of inviting new members to join us in our work with seriousness, but also with much excitement. This spring, we reviewed nearly two dozen exceptional candidates from the fields of law and public policy. Today, we are pleased to announce that we have a cohort of three excellent scholars to add to our ranks.

Building clean energy infrastructure quickly will be critical to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change while bolstering grid resilience and flexibility. Much of the discourse portrays infrastructure deployment as plagued by bureaucratic and legal holdups that should be eliminated or drastically curtailed in service of faster development — with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) often taking sole blame for these delays. But is that really where the problem is? Our analyses suggest that solely blaming NEPA for permitting delays overlooks other contributing factors.

When I think about what makes the Center for Progressive Reform the “Center for Progressive Reform,” one name comes to mind: Rena Steinzor. This year, Rena is officially retiring from her “day job” as Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, so it is a fitting occasion to reflect on what her “side hustle” at the Center meant for the organization and for me personally.

Last Friday, the D.C. Circuit issued a two-page opinion refusing to stay a regulation. The D.C. Circuit frequently denies stays, but this ruling was notable for three reasons: It allows an important climate change regulation to go into effect; it clarifies an important legal doctrine; and it has a good chance of being upheld on appeal — even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a previous regulation on the same subject.

To cushion the shock of abandoning Chevron, the U.S. Supreme Court created a safe harbor for past judicial decisions. This was well-advised. The Court itself applied Chevron at least 70 times, as did thousands of lower court decisions. The key question will be the scope of the grandfather clause.

Regulations that were upheld by the courts during the Chevron era have some protection, but new regulations will be fully subject to Loper Bright rather than Chevron. The general refrain in the Loper opinion is “Skidmore deference.” What does that mean and when does it apply?