Blog

The following post provides detailed analysis of the recent Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Supreme Court decision. It was originally posted to The George Washington Law Review and is  cross-posted with permission.  The current Supreme Court is not a friend of the administrative state. A majority of its members seem to take particular umbrage at administration of the regulatory programs […]

In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the federal government’s power to protect wetlands. The Court required “Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the Power of government over private property.”

We’ve already started to hear claims that the Biden power plant rule falls under the major questions doctrine, which the U.S. Supreme Court used to strike down former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Are those claims plausible?

Although the U.S. Constitution does not say so directly, the U.S. Supreme Court has said there are implied limits on state regulations that interfere with interstate commerce. This is known as the dormant commerce clause doctrine. State clean energy laws have been bedeviled by challenges based on this doctrine. The Supreme Court has just made it easier for states to fend off those claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to decide a case that could bring on a major weakening of the laws that the United States Congress has put into place to protect public health, safety, and the environment. The Chevron doctrine, as it's known, has never been popular with the regulated industries and conservative think tanks that want to limit the power of federal agencies.

On May 1, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on whether the U.S. Department of Commerce has the authority to require fishermen to allow inspectors on board. At stake is the ability of agencies to write regulations that reasonably interpret laws even when they are ambiguous.   

Testifying before Congress, releasing new books, engaging with the news media — our Member Scholars packed virtually a year’s worth of advocacy on climate justice, clean air and water, and worker health and safety into the first three months of 2023.

Ever since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA, conservatives and industry interests have claimed that just about every new regulation violates the major question doctrine. When the Biden administration ramped up fuel efficiency requirements through 2026, ideologues such as the Heritage Foundation and states like Texas were quick to wheel out this attack. No doubt the same attack will be made on the administration's ambitious proposed post-2026 standard. Maybe Judge Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, crusader against abortion pills and all things liberal, would buy that argument. But opponents won’t be able to handpick their judge this time, and the chances that this argument will win in the D.C. Circuit are slim to none.

On April 18, congressional conservatives turned their favorite anti-regulatory weapon toward a new target: the Endangered Species Act (ESA). At a hearing of the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee, the majority pushed no less than three Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions aimed at blocking ESA protections. Testifying at the hearing in response to these attacks was Center for Progressive Reform Member Scholar Rob Fischman, a law professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law and a widely recognized ESA expert.