Latest Post

Springfield Watch | News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News This Richmond couple said last year’s floods prepared them for more. And then came more

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo And Relentless v. Department of Commerce

“The Chevron Reverence and why it was important”, Philip Bobbitt in BBC News
“The problem is that many people think Congress is now quite dysfunctional,” says Philip Bobbitt, Herbert Wechsler Professor of Federal Law. “The direction the court is moving … seems to contradict the reality of the gridlock in Congress as it actually functions today.” Read more.

“As the Supreme Court Chevron Decision will influence climate policy”, Michael Burger in Axios
“If I were issuing a new rule today, I would try to document and clarify how the key aspects of the rule are tied to factual, technical, and policy findings,” says Michael Burger (born 2003), executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “I would spend much less time providing legal justifications for why the decision represents a reasonable or permissible interpretation of an ambiguous law.” Read more.

“A series of Supreme Court decisions hit environmental regulations hard,” Michael Gerrard in The New York Times
“For more than 30 years, agencies have had to apply old, existing laws to solve new environmental problems,” said Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “And this new court now makes that extraordinarily difficult. Unless Congress is extremely clear, agencies cannot act. But because Congress is largely incapable of acting, this in turn denies them the ability to act.” Read more.

“The Heart and Lungs of Freedom”, Philip Hamburger in The New York Sun
The decision is “the beginning of the end of the administrative state,” says Hamburger. Read more.

Note: Hamburger submitted a Amicus Curiae Brief in support of the petitioner in Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoThe New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonprofit legal group founded by Hamburger, represented the plaintiff in Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.

“The Fed banks’ supervisory powers will become more uncertain after the court case,” said Kathryn Judge in Reuters
The Federal Reserve’s banking regulators “may be less inclined to regulate aggressively because they fear that banks, as the better-funded potential plaintiffs, will be more likely to fight back if there is aggressive regulation,” says Kathryn Judge, the Harvey J. Goldschmid Professor of Law. “But there is no reason to believe that the courts will necessarily be more inclined to side with the banks,” and this lack of clarity means it will be hard to predict how any rule challenges will ultimately turn out. Read more.