This post was originally published on Legal Planet. Reprinted with permission.
Not that long ago, conservatives demanded that the government balance costs and benefits. They still do, but with a twist: They demand special limits on consideration of environmental effects. But that makes no sense. Whatever rules we have about costs should apply to all types of costs, and the same with benefits. The result of skewing the analysis is, not surprisingly, that we get conservative results more often.
Take a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Seven County Infrastructure. The case involved the construction of a small length of track that would for the first time allow the huge oil resources in a mountain basin to reach market. The Court said that the environmental impact statement for the project shouldn’t consider the environmental impacts of the surge in oil production or the pollution from refineries it would cause. But in determining the benefits of the project, the agency approving the track had naturally pointed to the economic benefits of a big increase in oil production and its positive impact on the local economy. The Court said that the drilling was too remote from the track construction to consider its environmental impacts, but not too remote to consider its economic impacts?
Another example is the treatment of co-benefits. When we try to control one pollutant from an industry, there’s often an additional benefit in the reduction of other pollutants. For instance, reducing carbon dioxide or mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants reduces the level of dangerous particulates. Conservatives insist it’s not fair to count the health benefits from the particulate reduction because that isn’t the target pollutant. And somehow, the enormous health benefits — and the related savings in health care costs — from reducing coal pollution got no mention whatsoever. But when it comes to considering the downsides of regulation, they are far more generous.
For instance, in considering whether to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants, the Trump EPA relied on one of Trump’s executive orders. The executive order contained findings that “beautiful clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers” and “to increasing ‘energy supply,’ lowering ‘electricity costs,’ stabilizing the power grid, creating ‘high paying jobs,’ supporting ‘burgeoning industries,’ and assisting allies abroad.” In considering the relation between the industry’s carbon dioxide emissions and climate change, EPA relied on “background legal principles of proximate cause” to downplay any climate effects. Those background principles were not applied, however, to the far-flung and indirect supposed benefits of promoting coal.
Like all double standards, this one has a not-so-secret agenda. Consideration of some specific effect of a policy is good when it supports conservative goals, and bad otherwise — and especially bad if it would lead to greater protection of the environment.
Where I grew up, we had a simpler approach: “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
Showing 2,916 results
Daniel Farber | August 21, 2025
Not that long ago, conservatives demanded that the government balance costs and benefits. They still do, but with a twist: They demand special limits on consideration of environmental effects. But that makes no sense. Whatever rules we have about costs should apply to all types of costs, and the same with benefits. The result of skewing the analysis is, not surprisingly, that we get conservative results more often.
James Goodwin | August 12, 2025
For conservatives and many political centrists, there was a clear villain to blame for congressional dysfunction: Chevron deference. Repealing this legal doctrine — which generally called on federal courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions they are charged with implementing — would inaugurate a new Golden Age of Article I primacy and productivity, they claimed.
Daniel Farber | July 29, 2025
If a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it, does it still make a sound? If a law hasn’t been formally repealed but can be violated with complete impunity, is it still in effect? I’ll leave the first question to philosophers, but the second one could have major legal implications. Here’s why.
Daniel Farber | July 21, 2025
President Donald Trump is on a rampage. He has big plans for a mass repeal of existing regulations, he’s trying to use emergency declarations to short-circuit normal environmental protections, and he’s savaging environmental agencies. He’s also at war with the rule of law, dodging court orders, ignoring statutes, and punishing lawyers and law firms that have dared to challenge him. In area after area, Trump has tried to sweep aside legal constraints. Part of the point of Trump’s “shock and awe” campaign has been to overwhelm the ability of opponents and the courts to keep up with his legally questionable actions. Trump’s attack on the bureaucracy is also an attack on the rule of law because one of the key functions of bureaucrats is to ensure that the government follows the rules.
Federico Holm, James Goodwin | July 14, 2025
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) provides Congress with an expedited procedure to review and potentially overturn final rules issued by federal agencies. Despite being touted as an avenue for congressional oversight, the CRA is often deployed as a partisan tool that replaces agency expertise and democratic consideration with political maneuvers and slim voting majorities. Without meaningful debate, public participation, or scientific input, anti-regulatory members of Congress can undo years of exhaustive scientific and legal research and multiple rounds of public input in the span of a few months. In our new analysis building off our CRA By the Numbers 2025 tracker, we take stock of the use of the CRA in the current Congress, to understand how it fails as a legislative oversight tool and how it undermines democracy and agency expertise.
Daniel Farber | July 8, 2025
In one of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders, he eliminated a centralized system that Jimmy Carter initially set up to issue regulations governing environmental impact statements. Instead, he called on each agency to issue its own regulations, which seems to have caused the predictable amount of confusion. I’ve examined the new regulations from three agencies: the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Transportation (DOT), which happened to be the first ones that I saw. There seems to be little rhyme or reason in the variations.
Catalina Gonzalez | July 1, 2025
At the center of the Republican reconciliation bill that the U.S. Senate just sent back to the House is a renewal of President Donald Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that was originally set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Republicans have been working graveyard shifts to force a vote before the July 4th holiday to lock in even bigger tax breaks for the wealthiest five percent of Americans for the next 10 years. To pay for this, as well as increases in immigration enforcement operations, congressional Republicans are proposing an historic $1.7 trillion in cuts to healthcare, food assistance, and clean energy jobs.
Federico Holm | June 30, 2025
Since our last update on June 17, there have been few noteworthy developments regarding Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions, which is consistent with our expectations based on the timing for the consideration and voting of resolutions, as well as the ongoing negotiations on the “one big beautiful bill.”
Alejandro Camacho, Robert L. Glicksman | June 30, 2025
NEPA requires government agencies to use a transparent process with meaningful public participation to consider the potential environmental effects of their actions before committing to them. It is one of the United States’ bedrock environmental protection statutes and has been so widely emulated in other countries that it has become known as the “Magna Carta” of global environmental law. In the U.S., however, NEPA has recently been the subject of withering scrutiny and attack by critics across the political spectrum. Its opponents have called for the narrowing of NEPA’s scope and the “streamlining” of its processes, charging that the Act’s core mandate to “look before you leap” has spun out of control and created unintended and massive obstacles to approval of critical infrastructure.