Around the web, Supreme Court experts are offering cautious opinions about Monday’s oral argument in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Court’s latest climate change case. As expected, all eyes were focused on Justice Kennedy. In the New York Times, Adam Liptak suggests that a point made by Justice Kennedy “did not bode well for the agency.” In his post on SCOTUSBlog, Lyle Dennison has a more EPA-favorable view, suggesting that Kennedy’s “vote seemed inclined toward the EPA, though with some doubt.”
Having read the transcript, I’m inclined to think that EPA is likely to lose, but that the decision may nonetheless be helpful to environmentalists in the long run.
I suspect that Justice Kennedy may vote against EPA for two reasons. The first (and perhaps somewhat less serious) is based on the pseudo-science of counting the words a justice says during an argument. Political scientists have demonstrated that parties tend to lose when they are asked more questions, and that the amount a justice speaks during the argument provides insights into that justice’s inclinations. If that theory holds true, EPA is in trouble. Justice Kennedy spoke only twice during the argument presented for the industry challengers, uttering about 110 words, and he remained entirely silent during the presentation by the Texas Attorney General on behalf of the state challengers. In contrast, Justice Kennedy spoke seven times during Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s argument on behalf of EPA, uttering approximately 180 words. Of course, the general trend that the number of words spoken by the Justices relates to a party’s likelihood of success doesn’t always play out in individual cases.
My second reason for believing that the Supreme Court may rule against EPA is a more specific to this case. Justice Kennedy’s questions appear to express skepticism about EPA’s position. At one point Justice Kennedy said to the Solicitor General: “I couldn’t find a single precedent that strongly supports your position. . . . [W]hat are the cases you want me to cite if I write the opinion to sustain your position?” Justice Kennedy also appeared to want assurance that an EPA loss would not be too significant an event, asking the Solicitor General: “Just to be clear, you’re not saying . . . that if you’re denied the authority you seek here, there can be no significant regulation of greenhouse gases under the Act?” Soon thereafter, perhaps sensing the mood among the Justices, Justice Sotomayor followed up, asking “If you were going to lose. . .” (The Solicitor General interrupted before the question finished, saying “I knew you were going to ask me that question.”).
On Mar. 3, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that will decide whether Freddie Hall should be on death row. In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Prof. Marc Tasse argues that Florida’s standard for evaluating intellectual disability in death penalty cases is “unscientific and a breach of Hall’s constitutional protection as mandated in Atkins v. Virginia.” For more on Hall v. Florida, please see analysis by Prof. John H. Blume at ACSblog.
Consumers were victorious Monday when the high court rejected an appeal from washing machine manufacturers in a class-action lawsuit. Writing for Slate, Emily Bazelon explains why the decision is “surprising and good news.”
Republicans are calling for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay and lesbian customers. Reuters’ David Schwartz reports on growing frustration in the Grand Canyon State.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this week on the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Adam Liptak at The New York Times reviews Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA.
On the second anniversary of Trayvon Martin’s death, Charles D. Ellison of The Root reflects on Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.
Federal District Court Judge William J. Martini dismissed a case against the New York Police Department for “engaging in blanket surveillance” of Arab Muslim communities after September 11, 2001. Adam Serwer of MSNBC exposes why the court’s decision shows that “religious profiling is okay, as long as you have a really good reason.”
Christopher Sprigman of Just Security examines the public relations effort by the National Security Agency’s Director of Compliance John DeLong and the agency’s General Counsel Rajesh De concerning the NSA’s controversial surveillance activities. In the article, Sprigman reveals why these efforts “create the appearance but not the reality of lawfulness.”
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency. Robert Barnes at The Washington Post breaks down Utility Air Regulator Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. For more on this case, please visit the ACSblog.
Writing for the Brennan Center for Justice, Andrew Cohen comments on the lack of media coverage on states’ secrecy laws concerning the types of lethal injections used in executions. Cohen discusses the implications of the media’s inaction.
At ACLU’s Blog of Rights, Nusrat Choudhury deconstructs Lee Daniels' The Butler and how its depiction of the arduous legal battles of the 1960s Civil Rights movement reminds viewers that “considerable distance remains on the path to true racial equality.”
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument today in a case addressing EPA’s application of the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases (“GHGs”). This will mark the third time the Court has dealt with a case related to climate change. Like its predecessors, this case has generated lots of attention, both from regulated parties and the media.
Despite the attention, one of the most significant features of the case is, perhaps surprisingly, what is not at stake. This case had the potential to call into question the foundations of the Obama Administration’s efforts to address climate change. Before the D.C. Circuit, industry groups and a coalition of states opposed to federal regulation of GHGs, challenged an array of EPA regulatory decisions. These challengers sought to overturn: (1) EPA’s determination that GHGs endanger public health and welfare; (2) EPA’s further determination that GHGs from cars and trucks contribute to the danger; (3) EPA’s regulation of tailpipe emissions of GHGs from cars and trucks; (4) EPA’s reaffirmation of its long-held view that once an air pollutant is regulated, new and modified major stationary sources of that pollutant are regulated under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program (“PSD”); and (5) EPA’s decision to phase-in the applicability of PSD and exempt, at least in the short-term, sources that would plainly be covered by the statutory text. The D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of EPA on all counts, and the challengers sought Supreme Court review of all of those issues and also asked the Court to overrule its earlier decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that GHGs are an air pollutant. The Court declined the vast majority of that invitation, deciding instead to consider only the fourth issue described above, whether EPA properly interpreted the statute to automatically trigger regulation under PSD once a pollutant is otherwise regulated.
The limited grant is important for a couple of reasons. It suggests that the Court has little appetite to revisit the question of whether GHGs are air pollutants. It further indicates that the Court is willing to leave undisturbed, at least for the time being, EPA’s decision that GHGs endanger public health and welfare. Those two determinations underlie virtually any regulatory action under the Clean Air Act, and the Court’s denial of certiorari on those points leaves the agency in a strong position to continue regulating GHGs. Practically speaking, the limited grant means that any decision will have little consequence beyond the PSD Program itself, and that program was never likely to be the centerpiece of an EPA climate strategy under the Clean Air Act.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case will likely be invested with significant symbolic import. Some conservative commentators, legislators, and advocacy groups have repeatedly accused the Obama Administration of overreaching when it comes to addressing climate change, and a victory for the challengers will fuel that criticism. Progressive and liberal commentators, legislators, and advocacy groups have taken the opposite position and argued that the Administration has ample existing authority to tackle one of the biggest public policy challenges of our time. A victory for EPA will be heralded in those circles as a vindication for the broader climate strategy.
Arizona lawmakers passed a bill that allows businesses to discriminate against gay and lesbian customers and to deny equal pay to women. GOP lawmakers are fervently defending the legislation, claiming that it protects the religious freedoms outlined in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. MSNBC’s Adam Serwer reports on the controversial law.
Oregon officials announced that they will no longer uphold the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Although the fate of the ban has yet to be decided in the courts, the state’s decision remains a significant victory for gay couples in Oregon. Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog has the story.
Environmentalists are engaged in a legal dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency after a North Carolina energy company polluted a nearby river with hazardous coal ash. Rena Steinzor and Michael Patoka of the CPRBlog discuss the need to regulate toxic coal ash and the alleged mishandling by the state’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Human Rights Watch explains why a deadly U.S. drone strike on a wedding procession in Yemen may have “violated the laws of war.”
Writing for Balkinization, David Gans responds to Prof. Douglas Laycock’s claim that corporations can exercise religion.
At Womenstake, Stephanie Glover provides an update on women’s enrollment in health insurance plans through the new Health Insurance Marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act.