litigation

Ah ha

California is suing the federal government over weak fuel-efficiency standards. No wonder the Bush administration made a big to-do of announcing its tepid alternative fuels plan today (even though nothing would happen with it until 2008). Rove’s trying to capture the news cycle. (thanks LL) Update [2007-5-14 13:49:14 by David Roberts]: Pure coincidence! Q The […]

Not exactly

Wondering what to make of this? President Bush responded to a Supreme Court environmental ruling by settling on regulatory changes that don’t need congressional approval, the White House said Monday. Bush is announcing the steps he is directing his administration to take in a Rose Garden appearance later Monday. Read on down a little bit: […]

New book examines Army Corps ruling

Attention brains: I am contractually obligated, by virtue of having been born, to mention that my father has helped put out a book of essays that look at the Supreme Court’s ruling last year on the Army Corps of Engineers and the Clean Water Act, and at the future of federal wetlands protection. The five […]

Warming Law: new blog on green court cases

Did the EPA really think the Mass. v. EPA decision was a "stunner"? Isn’t that the kind of thing you prepare for? On that note, check out a new blog: Warming Law. It was started in the wake of Mass. v. EPA to analyze that decision and its effect on other important pending environmental cases. […]

If you won’t go after them, we will

The IPCC reports are some of the most highly anticipated of 2007. An obvious sign? Within two weeks of one report's release, papers are already covering a leak from the next.

IPCC Working Group III's focus is on mitigation, meaning a fair number of policy implications can be derived from its conclusions. So here's a hint for America's auto industry: the report calls for urgent action on road pollution.

In the United States, there are 483 passenger cars per 1,000 people (EarthTrends). The world average is about 100, and few countries outnumber our car count (Australia, for example, had 492 in 1996).

What a bunch of whiners

So, remember that lawsuit by the automakers against states implementing California’s clean air standards? The one I said might be dismissed, um, several weeks ago? Breaking: it wasn’t dismissed! In fact, the trial is rolling along, and the whiny-ass-titty-baby automakers are in court right now arguing that they don’t have the smarts, money, or time […]

You heard it here first

The lawsuit filed by automakers against states that have adopted California’s greenhouse-gas restrictions on vehicles may be dismissed as early as tomorrow (Wed.) afternoon. When the Supreme Court ruling in Mass. vs. EPA was announced, the judge handling the automakers’ lawsuit — Judge William K. Sessions III of the U.S. District Court of Vermont — […]

I do not think it means what you think it means

President Bush "said he took climate change very seriously Tuesday, a day after the US Supreme Court ruled the government must regulate greenhouse gases." In other news, President Bush "said on Tuesday he planned no new action to impose caps on greenhouse gases blamed for global warming."

Some musings and analysis

The discussion of Massachusetts v. EPA is well underway thanks to David's summary of the action. I'm going to provide some thoughts about each of the three issues involved in the case, as well as some of the possible implications.

The outcome of Mass. v. EPA boils down to one thing: the Supreme Court has ordered EPA to think again. While that may not sound like much, in the world of administrative law, it is a total rout for the Bush administration.

While the outcome is good news, this decision was as close as they come. I'm not surprised that the Court split 5 to 4 on the issue of standing. However, this divide extended to all three questions before the court.