Environmental protection

  • November 21, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Lisa HeinzerlingJustice William J. Brennan, Jr. Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. The author was a political appointee at the Environmental Protection Agency from January 2009 to December 2010. She served on the EPA Presidential Transition Team in 2008.

    The Environmental Protection Agency is under court order to issue, by December 1, a proposal to retain or revise the national air quality standards for ground-level ozone. Scientific studies have linked ozone, also known as smog, to a variety of adverse effects on public health and welfare. EPA's expert staff and its outside scientific advisors have recommended, based on this scientific evidence, that EPA set new, stronger standards for ozone. The Clean Air Act requires that air quality standards – "primary" standards for public health, "secondary" standards for public welfare – be set at levels "requisite to protect" public health and welfare. A central question for the proposal to be issued by December 1 is whether the current air quality standards for ozone, set at 75 parts per billion of ozone in the ambient air, adequately provide such protection.

    At the moment, EPA's preferred approach to the ozone standards awaits White House clearance. EPA has sent a regulatory package – likely including, as is customary, the proposed standards, a formal explanation of EPA's choices, and an economic analysis of the proposal – to the White House for review. Under executive orders issued by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the President has asserted the authority to review significant agency rules like the ozone standard and to reject or revise them if they are not consistent with his policies or priorities. President Obama exercised this self-given power previously in the context of ozone, when in 2011 he ordered then-EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to withdraw stronger, revised national air quality standards for ozone. As I will explain, President Obama's past exercise of power hangs over the current decision whether to revise the ozone standards.

    Before President Obama ordered Administrator Jackson to withdraw the revised ozone standards she had developed, the EPA under Administrator Jackson had been working on the revised standards for years, indeed since the day President Obama took office. Revision was necessary, in EPA's view, because standards set during the administration of President George W. Bush had departed from the scientific evidence indicating that stronger rules were necessary to protect public health and welfare. Indeed, EPA's scientific advisors on air quality had reacted to the Bush-era standards by issuing a pointed, unsolicited rebuke, stating that the advisors did not endorse the Bush standards. Strengthening the Bush-era ozone standards was a core EPA priority in the early days of the Obama administration, offering an opportunity both to protect public health and welfare and to return the agency to scientifically sound decision making. No one would have guessed, then, that President Obama would eventually order Administrator Jackson to back off and leave the Bush-era standards in place. But that's what happened.

  • June 24, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Justin Pidot, Assistant Professor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law; Member, Board of Directors, ACS Colorado Lawyer Chapter; Faculty Advisor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law ACS Student Chapter

    The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA yesterday. While vacating aspects of the EPA’s decision, the Court chose to leave EPA with authority to address the vast majority of the polluters the agency sought to regulate. In so doing, the opinion also offers a twist on the Court’s continuing debate about statutory construction and administrative law. 

    Those needing a  refresher on this case, please refer to my two previous ACSblog posts, here and here. For the purposes of understanding the opinion, suffice it to say that the case involves EPA’s “tailoring rule,” which applies one of the more arcane provisions of the Clean Air Act – the Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions (or “PSD”) – to greenhouse gases (“GHGs”). In so doing, EPA regulated two categories of sources: those subject to PSD regardless of their GHG emissions (referred to as “anyway sources” because they are already subject to PSD anyway). And those only subject to PSD because of the amount of GHGs they emit.

    The High Court’s View of the Tailoring Rule

    Justice Scalia authored the opinion for the Court, which was largely favorable to EPA despite his staunch opposition to Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gases in the 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA case. Writing for a seven-member majority, Scalia upheld the tailoring rule’s requirement that “anyway sources” control GHG emissions.  Writing for the conservative bloc of five justices, Scalia also ruled that EPA unreasonably applied PSD to sources that would not be subject to PSD but for their GHG emissions. 

    Practically speaking, this is a significant win for EPA. As Scalia acknowledges, “anyway sources” account for 83 percent of GHG emissions from stationary sources. EPA strenuously defended its authority to regulate “anyway sources”—both in its briefing and at argument—and its emphasis clearly paid off. The sources the Court’s conservatives exempted from the reach of PSD account for only an additional 3 percent of emissions.

    The decision also suggests that seven of the justices now view the issues decided in the Massachusetts v. EPA case as settled. Only Justices Thomas and Alito expressed the view that the case should be overruled. 

  • June 16, 2014
    Writing for Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost argues why Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu’s decision on the unconstitutionality of the California tenure system for teachers was a “drive-by assault on teachers unions” while Slate’s Jordan Weissmann comments on the false statistic cited in Judge Treu’s opinion that between 1 and 3 percent of California’s teachers are “grossly ineffective.”
     
     
    At The Huffington PostGeoffrey R. Stone, former ACS Board Chair and current Co-Chair of the Board of Advisors for the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter as well as Co-Faculty Advisor for the University of Chicago Law School ACS Student Chapter shares some facts about the most religious states in America.
     
    At The National Law Journal, Tony Mauro examines Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion in Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio
  • June 3, 2014

     
    The Supreme Court ruled that a Pennsylvania woman who attempted to poison her husband’s mistress cannot be prosecuted under federal law. The justices ruled that the federal ban on chemical weapons does not apply to Carol Anne Bond, whose attempt to poison her victim resulted only in “a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” Lyle Denniston as SCOTUSblog breaks down Bond v. United States.
     
    New voting laws across the country will pose an arduous task for minority voters in the midterm elections. In states like North Carolina and Texas, these restrictions will “disproportionately affect registration and voting by African-Americans as compared with whites.” Fanita Tolson discusses the issue in the Tallahassee Democrat.
     
    Trip Gabriel at The New York Times addresses why democrats in Kentucky are disillusioned by the Obama administrations’ ambitious proposal for regulating power plant emissions.
     
    At Just Security, Marty Lederman examines the Obama administration’s reasons for not waiting “30 days to complete the Bergdahl exchange.” 
     
    At Concurring Opinions, Ronald K.L. Collins provides a “snapshot of the Roberts Court’s record on free expression issues.” 
  • June 2, 2014
     
    Today, the Obama administration will announce new environmental regulations that will cut carbon pollution from power plants by 30 percent. The regulations represent the “strongest actions ever taken by the United States government to fight climate change.” Coral Davenport at The New York Times explains how the action will affect environmental health and its implications for the American electricity industry.
     
    Pro-choice activists are working to counter the growing anti-abortion legislation sweeping the country as many expect the issue to reach the Supreme Court next term. Sophie Novack and Sam Baker at The National Journal explain why, if the issue reaches the Court, pro-choice activists may be “on the verge of a massive gamble.”
     
    At Bilerico, John M. Becker discusses Justice Anthony Kennedy’s response to the National Organization for Marriage’s recent efforts to block same-sex marriage in Oregon.
     
    A six-year old girl is recovering from being a victim of a stray bullet while playing at a local Washington, DC playground. NPR’s All Things Considered addresses how gun violence continues to trouble America’s inner cities.