Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T11:00:41.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Law

Anti-regulatory Statutory Interpretations and Reshaping the Judiciary

from Part IV - America’s Regulatory Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2022

Shanti Gamper-Rabindran
Shanti Gamper-Rabindran
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access

Summary

Trump and his administration brazenly interpreted laws to expand the president’s powers to open public lands and seas to drilling, to limit states’ powers to protect their waters from oil and gas infrastructure, and to advance deregulation in the oil and gas sector. The district courts ruled against the Trump administration and federal agencies in several (but not all) instances, and with the Biden administration in power, many of these cases will not proceed to the higher courts. The more long-lasting legacy of the Trump administration is his reshaping of the federal judiciary, made possible with the support of the Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, congressional Republicans and an array of conservative and corporate stakeholders. Judges’ views of the administrative state, i.e., as an ally in protecting individuals against powerful corporations or as a foe to personal liberty and property rights, often color their decisions. Trump nominated judges who are skeptical of the administrative state and who lean towards legal interpretations that limit Congress’s ability to enact expansive environmental laws and that limit agencies’ statutory powers. Trump’s appointments – three Supreme Court judges and more than a quarter of active federal court judges – shifted the courts toward deregulation.

Keywords

originalismjudicial reviewFederalist Societyadministrative statepresidential powerscooperative federalismChevronnondelegationmajor rules doctrine
Type
Chapter
Information
America's Energy Gamble
People, Economy and Planet
 , pp. 369 - 412
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Congressional Research Service. Congress’s Authority to Influence and Control Executive Branch Agencies. Report by T. Garvey, legislative attorney and D. Sheffner, legislative attorney. R45442 (December 19, 2018). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45442.pdf.Google Scholar
Gerrard, M. B.. “Emergency Exemptions from Environmental Laws.” In Law in the Time of COVID-19, edited by Pistor, K.. New York: Columbia Law School, 2020.Google Scholar
Michaels, J. D.. Constitutional Coup: Privatization’s Threat to the American Republic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Emerson, B.. The Public’s Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Southworth, A.. Lawyers of the Right: Professionalizing the Conservative Coalition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Teles, S. M.. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, A.. Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Avery, M. and McLaughlin, D.. The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R. and Mufson, S.. “White House Counts on Kavanaugh in Battle against ‘Administrative State.’” Washington Post, August 12, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/brett-kavanaugh-and-the-end-of-the-regulatory-state-as-we-know-it/2018/08/12/22649a04-9bdc-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html.Google Scholar
Metzger, G. E.. “1930s Redux: The Administrative State under Siege.” Harvard Law Review 131, no. 1 (November 10, 2017): 1–95. https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/1930s-redux-the-administrative-state-under-siege.Google Scholar
Southworth, A.. “Lawyers and the Conservative Counterrevolution.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 4 (September 24, 2018): 1698–1728. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12363.Google Scholar
Squillace, M. et al. “Presidents Lack the Authority to Abolish or Diminish National Monuments.” Virginia Law Review Online 103 (June 9, 2017): 55–71. www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/Hecht%20PDF.pdf.Google Scholar
Hein, J.. “Monumental Decisions: One-Way Levers Towards Preservation in the Antiquities Act and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.” Environmental Law 48, no. 125 (April 11, 2018): 126–166.Google Scholar
Trump, D. J.. Presidential Executive Order on Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery From the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities. Executive Order 13927, 85 Federal Register 35165–35170 (2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/09/2020-12584/accelerating-the-nations-economic-recovery-from-the-covid-19-emergency-by-expediting-infrastructure.Google Scholar
Davenport, C. and Friedman, L.. “Trump, Citing Pandemic, Moves to Weaken Two Key Environmental Protections.” New York Times, June 4, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/climate/trump-environment-coronavirus.html.Google Scholar
Reeves, D.. “Trump Suspends Environmental Rules for Infrastructure, Citing Pandemic.” Energy Washington Week, June 4, 2020. https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-suspends-environmental-rules-infrastructure-citing-pandemic.Google Scholar
Glicksman, R. L.. “The Firm Constitutional Foundation and Shaky Political Future of Environmental Cooperative Federalism.” In Controversies in American Federalism and Public Policy, edited by Banks, C. P.. 132–150. London, UK: Routledge, 2018.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. and Ellis, C.. “Clean Water Act Section 401: Balancing States’ Rights and the Nation’s Need for Energy Infrastructure.” Hastings Environmental Law Journal 25, no. 2 (2019): 235–262. https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1568&context=hastings_environmental_law_journal.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. Clean Water Act Section 401: Background and Issues. Report by C. Copeland, specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy. 97–488 (Washington, DC: 2015). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-488.pdf.Google Scholar
Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 42210–42287 (July 13, 2020). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-06/documents/pre-publication_version_of_the_clean_water_act_section_401_certification_rule_508.pdf.Google Scholar
Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Objection to “Clean Water Act Section 401 Guidance for Federal Agencies, States and Authorized Tribes” Issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Submitted to A. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. July 25, 2019.Google Scholar
Carper, T., ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Duckworth, T., ranking member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife, and Booker, C. A., ranking member of the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste, Management, and Regulatory Oversight. Comments on Proposed Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule. Submitted to A. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. October 21, 2019.Google Scholar
Parenteau, P.. “EPA’s Latest Power Grab Is Aimed at States’ Rights.” The Hill, August 14, 2019. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/457426-epas-latest-power-grab-is-aimed-at-states-rights.Google Scholar
Nasmith, M., staff attorney of Earthjustice, et al. Comments on EPA Proposed Rule Updating Regulations on Water Quality Certification. Submitted to A. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. October 21, 2019.Google Scholar
PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 US 700 (Supreme Court 1994).Google Scholar
S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 US 370 (Supreme Court 2006).Google Scholar
Buzbee, W. W.. “Agency Statutory Abnegation in the Deregulatory Playbook.” Duke Law Journal 68, no. 8 (2019): 1509–1591. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol68/iss8/1.Google Scholar
Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation: Final Rule. 43 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 3100, 3160 and 3170. I. Bureau of Land Management. 81 Federal Register 83008–83089 www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-11-18/pdf/2016-27637.pdf.Google Scholar
Wyoming v. US Department of Interior, No. 2:16-CV-0280-SWS, 2017 WL 161428 (D. Wyo. Jan. 16, 2017).Google Scholar
Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation; Rescission or Revision of Certain Requirements: Final Rule. 43 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 3160 and 3170. Bureau of Land Management. 83 Federal Register 49184–49214. www.regulations.gov/document?D=BLM-2018-0001-223600.Google Scholar
League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (D. Alaska 2019), vacated and remanded sub nom. League of Conservation Voters v. Biden, 843 F. Appendix 937 (9th Cir. 2021).Google Scholar
California v. Bernhardt, 472 F. Supp. 3d 573 (N.D. Cal 2020).Google Scholar
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar
Heinzerling, L.. “Opinion Analysis: The Justices’ Purpose-full Reading of the Clean Water Act.” SCOTUSblog. 2020. www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/opinion-analysis-opinion-analysis-the-justices-purpose-full-reading-of-the-clean-water-act.Google Scholar
California v. US Bureau of Land Management, No. 18-CV-00521-HSG, 2018 WL 3439453 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2018).Google Scholar
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 549 US 497 (Supreme Court 2007).Google Scholar
Sherman, M.. “Roberts, Trump Spar in Extraordinary Scrap over Judges.” Associated Press News, November 21, 2018. https://apnews.com/c4b34f9639e141069c08cf1e3deb6b84.Google Scholar
Baum, L. and Devins, N.. The Company They Keep: How Partisan Divisions Came to the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
Cannon, J. Z.. Environment in the Balance: The Green Movement and the Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Revesz, R. L.. “Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the DC Circuit.” Virginia Law Review Online 83, no. 8 (November 1997): 1717–1772. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073657.Google Scholar
Epstein, L., Landes, W. M. and Posner, R. A.. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. et al. Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. and Miles, T. J.. “Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An Empirical Investigation of Chevron.” University of Chicago Law Review 73 (June 2006): 1–55.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.. “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” Yale Law Journal 115, no. 371 (2004): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/20455706.Google Scholar
Lawrence, O., Gostin, J. D. and Hodge, J. G. Jr. “Substantial Shifts in Supreme Court Health Law Jurisprudence.” JAMA 320, no. 14 (October 9, 2018): 1431–1432. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.12331.Google Scholar
Hodge, J. G., Jr. et al. “Public Health Law and Policy Implications: Justice Kavanaugh.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47, no. 2 suppl. (July 12, 2019): 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110519857319.Google Scholar
Gostin, L. O., Parmet, W. E. and Rosenbaum, S.. “Health Policy in the Supreme Court and a New Conservative Majority.” JAMA 324, no. 21 (2020): 2157–2158. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.21987.Google Scholar
Freeman, J.. “What Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Will Mean for Joe Biden’s Climate Plan.” Vox, October 26, 2020. www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21526207/amy-coney-barrett-senate-vote-environmental-law-biden-climate-plan.Google Scholar
Edsall, T. B.. “The Right’s Relentless Supreme Court Justice Picking Machine.” New York Times, October 1, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html.Google Scholar
Ryan, E.. “Environmentalists: Brace for Preemption, Propertization, and Problems of Political Scale.” In Environmental Law, Disrupted, edited by Owley, J. and Hirokawa, K.. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2019.Google Scholar
Heinzerling, L.. “The Power Cannons.” William & Mary Law Review 58, no. 6 (October 7, 2017): 1932–2004. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757770.Google Scholar
Beerman, J. M.. “The Never-Ending Assault on the Administrative State.” Notre Dame Law Review 93, no. 4 (July 2018): 1599–1652.Google Scholar
Calabresi, S. G. and Lawson, G.. “The Depravity of the 1930s and the Modern Administrative State.” Notre Dame Law Review 94, no. 2 (January 2019): 821–866. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=ndlr.Google Scholar
Metzger, G. E.. “The Roberts Court and Administrative Law.” Supreme Court Review, no. 1 (2020): 1–71.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, D. B. and Weingast, B. R.. “Engineering the Modern Administrative State, Part I: Political Accommodation and Legal Strategy in the New Deal Era.” Northwestern Public Law Research Paper, no. 19-03 (February 15, 2019): 1–65.Google Scholar
Galperin, J. “The Death of Administrative Democracy.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82, no. 1 (2020).Google Scholar
Mortenson, J. D. and Bagley, N.. “Delegation at the Founding.” University of Michigan Public Law Research Paper, no. 658 (December 31, 2019). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3512154.Google Scholar
Mortenson, J. D. and Bagley, N.. “There’s No Historical Justification for One of the Most Dangerous Ideas in American Law.” The Atlantic, May 26, 2020. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/nondelegation-doctrine-orliginalism/612013.Google Scholar
Bazelon, E.. “How Will Trump’s Supreme Court Remake America?” New York Times, February 27, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/magazine/how-will-trumps-supreme-court-remake-america.html.Google Scholar
Mashaw, J. L.. Creating the Administrative Constitution: The Lost One Hundred Years of American Administrative Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Novak, W.. “Law and the Social Control of American Capitalism.” Emory Law Journal 60 (2010): 377–405. https://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/60/2/symposium/novak.pdf.Google Scholar
Hacker, J. S. and Pierson, P.. American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017.Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (Supreme Court 1905).Google Scholar
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (Supreme Court 1937).Google Scholar
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar
Fligstein, N. and Roehrkasse, A. F.. “The Causes of Fraud in the Financial Crisis of 2007 to 2009: Evidence from the Mortgage-Backed Securities Industry.” American Sociological Review 81, no. 4 (June 23, 2016): 617–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416645594.Google Scholar
Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (Supreme Court 2019).Google Scholar
Kennedy, L., McCoy, P. A. and Bernstein, E.. “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Financial Regulation for the 21st Century.” Cornell Law Review 98, no. 5 (2012): 1141–1176.Google Scholar
McCoy, P. A.. “Inside Job: The Assault on the Structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” Minnesota Law Review 103, no. 6 (2018): 2543–2615.Google Scholar
Sharkey, C. M.. “The Administrative State and the Common Law: Regulatory Substitutes or Complements.” Emory Law Journal 65, no. 6 (2016): 1705–1740. https://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-65/issue-6/articles-essays/administrative-state-common-law-substitutes-complements.html.Google Scholar
PHH Corporation, et al., v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No 15-1177 (D.C. Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Sarkar, S. and Rosenthal, J. A.. “PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Financial Fairness and Administrative Anxiety.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 166, no. 14 (2018): 265–272. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review_online/vol166/iss1/14.Google Scholar
Harrington, S.. “Kavanaugh on the Executive Branch: PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” SCOTUSblog, 2018. www.scotusblog.com/2018/08/kavanaugh-on-the-executive-branch-phh-corp-v-consumer-financial-protection-bureau.Google Scholar
Fallon, R. H.. “Three Symmetries between Textualist and Purposivist Theories of Statutory Interpretation – and the Irreducible Roles of Values and Judgment within Both.” Cornell Law Review 99, no. 4 (May 2014): 685–734. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4628&context=clr.Google Scholar
Kaswan, A.. “Our New Pro-Liberty Justice–and What That Means for Environmental Law.” Trends 50, no. 3 (January/February 2019): 4–7. www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/trends/2018-2019/january-february-2019/our-new-pro-liberty.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. Chevron Deference: A Primer. Report by V. C. Brannon, legislative attorney and J. P. Cole, legislative attorney. R44954 (Washington, DC: September 19, 2017). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44954.pdf.Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. Deference and its Discontents: Will the Supreme Court Overrule Chevron? Report by V. C. Brannon, legislative attorney and J. P. Cole, legislative attorney. LSB10204 (Washington, DC: October 11, 2018). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10204.pdf.Google Scholar
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 467 US 837 (Supreme Court 1984).Google Scholar
Congressional Research Service. The DC Circuit Rejects EPA’s Mercury Rules: New Jersey v. EPA. RS22817 (Washington, DC: April 9, 2008). www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22817.html.Google Scholar
Morales, N.. “New Jersey v. Environmental Protection Agency.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 (2009): 263–282. https://harvardelr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/07/33.1-Morales.pdf.Google Scholar
Pojanowski, J. A.. “Without Deference.” Missouri Law Review 81 (February 24, 2017): 1076–1094.Google Scholar
Siegel, J. R.. “The Constitutional Case for Chevron Deference.” Vanderbilt Law Review 71, no. 3 (2018): 937–993.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R.. “Chevron As Law.” Georgetown Law Journal (January 9, 2019): 1–61.Google Scholar
Take Back the Court. The Roberts Court Would Likely Strike Down Climate Change Legislation. Report by S. Moyn and A. Belkin (September 2019). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ce33e8da6bbec0001ea9543/t/5d7d429025734e4ae9c92070/1568490130130/Supreme+Court+Will+Overturn+Climate+Legislation+FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Environmental Law Institute. “Challenges to Environmental Protection in the Courts Continued.” www.eli.org/constitution-courts-and-legislation/challenges-environmental-protection-courts-continued#commerce.Google Scholar
Biber, E. and O’Dea, E.. “Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional? How the Utah Prairie Dog Case May Impact California.” State Bar of California Environmental Law News 24, no. 1 (Summer 2015).Google Scholar
Biber, E.. “The ESA and the Commerce Clause.” Legal Planet, 2014. https://legal-planet.org/2014/11/18/the-esa-and-the-commerce-clause.Google Scholar
Dunec, J. L.. “Book Review: Global Chemical Control Handbook: A Guide to Chemical Management Programs, Lynn L. Bergeson, ed.” Review of Natural Resources & Environment (Spring 2016): 61–62.Google Scholar
Parker, B., executive director at Earthjustice. The Commerce Clause and the Environment. Analysis for Judging the Environment (2015). www.judgingtheenvironment.org/library/reports_analysis/the-commerce-clause-and-the-environment.pdf.Google Scholar
Kendall, D. T. and Lord, C. P.. “The Takings Project: A Critical Analysis and Assessment of the Progress So Far.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 25, no. 3 (May 1, 1998): 509–587. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=ealr.Google Scholar
Pollack, J.. “The Takings Project Revisited: A Critical Analysis of This Expanding Threat to Environmental Law.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 44 (2020): 235–278.Google Scholar
Mikva, A.. “The Wooing of Our Judges.” New York Times, August 28, 2000. www.nytimes.com/2000/08/28/opinion/the-wooing-of-our-judges.html.Google Scholar
Barnhizer, D.. “On the Make: Campaign Funding and the Corrupting of the American Judiciary.” Catholic University Law Review 50, no. 2 (Winter 2001): 361–428.Google Scholar
Wheeler, R.. “How Close Is President Trump to His Goal of Record-Setting Judicial Appointments?” Brookings Institution Blog, May 5, 2020. www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/05/05/how-close-is-president-trump-to-his-goal-of-record-setting-judicial-appointments.Google Scholar
Nevitt, M.. “The Remaking of the Supreme Court Implications for Climate Change Litigation and Regulation.” Cardozo Law Review 42, no. N (2020): 101–115.Google Scholar
Hulse, C.. “Protégé Confirmed, McConnell Is One Judge Closer to His Goal.” Washington Post, June 19, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/mcconnell-courts-justin-walker.html.Google Scholar
Zengerle, J.. “How the Trump Administration Is Remaking the Courts.” New York Times, August 22, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/magazine/trump-remaking-courts-judiciary.html.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D.. “Conquerors of the Courts.” Washington Post Magazine, January 2, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/01/02/feature/conquerors-of-the-courts.Google Scholar
Rao, N.. “Administrative Collusion: How Delegation Diminishes the Collective Congress.” New York University Law Review 90, no. 5 (October 16, 2015): 1463–1526.Google Scholar
Rao, N.. “The Trump Administration’s Deregulation Efforts Are Saving Billions of Dollars.” Washington Post, October 17, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administration-is-deregulating-at-breakneck-speed/2018/10/17/09bd0b4c-d194-11e8-83d6-291fcead2ab1_story.html.Google Scholar
Revesz, R. L.. “Destabilizing Environmental Regulation: The Trump Administration’s Concerted Attack on Regulatory Analysis.” Ecology Law Quarterly 47 (2020): 887–956.Google Scholar
Frazin, R.. “Court Strikes Down EPA Suspension of Obama-Era Greenhouse Gas Rule.” The Hill, April 7, 2020. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/491568-court-strikes-down-epa-suspension-of-obama-era-hfc-rule.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, M. J. and Painter, R. W.. “Majority Rule and the Future of Judicial Selection.” Wisconsin Law Review 2017, no. 2 (2017): 263–284.Google Scholar
Ruiz, R. R. et al. “Trump Stamps GOP Imprint on the Courts.” New York Times, March 15, 2020. https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/03/15/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf.Google Scholar
Federalist Society. “About Us.” 2020. https://fedsoc.org/about-us.Google Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, A.. “‘It’s the Network’: The Federalist Society As a Supplier of Intellectual Capital for the Supreme Court.” In Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, edited by Sarat, A.. 137–178. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2013.Google Scholar
Scherer, N. and Miller, B.. “The Federalist Society’s Influence on the Federal Judiciary.” Political Research Quarterly 62, no. 2 (May 1, 2009): 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908317030.Google Scholar
González, J., Goodman, A. and Lipton, E.. “Inside How the Federalist Society & Koch Brothers Are Pushing for Trump to Reshape Federal Judiciary.” Democracy Now!, March 21, 2017. www.democracynow.org/2017/3/21/inside_how_the_federalist_society_koch.Google Scholar
Lipton, E. and Peters, J.. “Conservatives Press Overhaul in the Judiciary.” New York Times, March 19, 2017.Google Scholar
O’Harrow, R., Jr. and Boburg, S.. “The Activist behind the Push to Reshape US Courts.” Washington Post, May 21, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, S., senator, and Durbin, R. J., senator. Request for Communications at the Department of Justice Pertaining to Mr. Leo Involvement in Potential, Actual, or Suggested Judicial Nominations. Submitted to Attorney General W. Barr. March 4, 2020.Google Scholar
Brennan Center for Justice. Who Pays for Judicial Races? The Politics of Judicial Elections 2015–16. Report by A. Bannon (December 14, 2017). www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/who-pays-judicial-races-politics-judicial-elections-2015-16.Google Scholar
Fang, L. and Surgey, N.. “Koch Document Reveals Laundry List of Policy Victories Extracted from the Trump Administration.” The Intercept, February 25, 2018. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/25/koch-brothers-trump-administration/.Google Scholar
Pienta, A.. Update to Report on “The Federalist Society’s Takeover of George Mason University’s Public Law School” (December 2018). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5400da69e4b0cb1fd47c9077/t/5c1d302b4fa51a38153ac07e/1545416751164/Update+to+Report+on+Federalist+Society+Takeover+of+GMU+Law+12+17+2018.pdf.Google Scholar
Pienta, A.. New Evidence Suggests Chicago Billionaire “Closely Allied” with the Koch Brothers and Implicated in Funding Climate-Change Denial and Islamophobia Is Anonymous “Dark Money” Donor behind Renaming of George Mason University’s Law School (December 16, 2019). https://medium.com/@acaalim/new-evidence-suggests-chicago-billionaire-closely-allied-with-the-koch-brothers-and-implicated-2abc9bcbd102.Google Scholar
Mayer, J.. “How Mitch McConnell Became Trump’s Enabler-in-Chief.” New Yorker Magazine, April 12, 2020. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-mitch-mcconnell-became-trumps-enabler-in-chief.Google Scholar
Ziblatt, D. and Levitsky, S.. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown, 2018.Google Scholar
Frum, D.. Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republican. New York: Harper Collins, 2018.Google Scholar
Stevens, S.. It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump. New York: Knopf, 2020.Google Scholar
Annenberg Public Policy Center. “Most Americans Trust the Supreme Court, But Think It Is ‘Too Mixed Up in Politics.’” News release, 2019, www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/most-americans-trust-the-supreme-court-but-think-it-is-too-mixed-up-in-politics.Google Scholar
Staff to Sheldon Whitehouse. “Senate Democrats Request Documents Related to Leonard Leo’s Work Leading Trump Administration Judicial Selections.” News release, March 5, 2020, www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senate-dems-request-docs-related-to-leonard-leos-work-leading-trump-admin-judicial-selections-say-leo-hand-picked-trump-judges-while-raking-in-undisclosed-sums-from-related-advocacy-groupsa-potential-conflict-of-interest-and-violation-of-federal-ethics-law.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, S.. “Dark Money and US Courts: The Problem and Solutions.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 57, no. 2 (2020): 273–301. https://harvardjol.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2020/05/Sen.-Whitehouse_Dark-Money.pdf.Google Scholar
Foran, C. and Barrett, T.. “Senate Passes Sweeping Conservation Legislation in Bipartisan Vote.” CNN Politics, June 17, 2020. www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/politics/conservation-legislation-senate/index.html.Google Scholar
US Congress. House. Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2019. H.R. 3972, 116th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in House August 15, 2019.Google Scholar
Coglianese, C. and Scheffler, G.. “What Congress’s Repeal Efforts Can Teach Us about Regulatory Reform.” Administrative Law Review Accord 3 (November 29, 2017): 43–58.Google Scholar
Meyer, R.. “The EPA Needs Lots of Money to Gut Itself.” The Atlantic, March 20, 2017. www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/the-paradox-of-defunding-the-epa/520002.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. and Vermeule, A.. “Massachusetts v. EPA: From Politics to Expertise.” Supreme Court Review 2007 (2007): 51–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/655170.Google Scholar
Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (Supreme Court 2006).Google Scholar
Wittenberg, A.. “Clean Water Rule: Will Scalia’s Dictionary Haunt Trump’s WOTUS Overhaul?” E&E News, May 15, 2017. www.eenews.net/stories/1060054554+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca.Google Scholar
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 US 302 (Supreme Court 2014).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, 572 US 489 (Supreme Court 2014).Google Scholar
Denniston, L.. “Opinion Analysis: Paying for Blocking Ill Winds.” SCOTUSblog, 2014.Google Scholar
Serfess, A.. “EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, LP: Supreme Court Upholds Transport Rule – Third Time’s a Charm for Good Neighbor Provision Enforcement.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 28, no. 1 (2014): 115–126.Google Scholar
Panama Refining Company v. Ryan, 293 US 388 (Supreme Court 1935).Google Scholar
ALA Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, 295 US 495 (Supreme Court 1935).Google Scholar
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 US 457 (Supreme Court 2001).Google Scholar
Hall, J.. “The Gorsuch Test: Gundy v. United States, Limiting the Administrative State, and the Future of Nondelegation.” Duke Law Journal 70, no. 1 (March 9, 2020): 175–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3550906.Google Scholar
Sohoni, M.. “Opinion Analysis: Court Refuses to Resurrect Nondelegation Doctrine.” SCOTUSblog, 2019. www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-court-refuses-to-resurrect-nondelegation-doctrine.Google Scholar
Farber, D.. “Just in From the Supreme Court.” Legal Planet, 2019. https://legal-planet.org/2019/11/25/just-in-from-the-supreme-court.Google Scholar
Farber, D.. “Justice Gorsuch Versus the Administrative State.” Center for Progressive Reform Blog, 2019. http://progressivereform.org/cpr-blog/justice-gorsuch-versus-the-administrative-state.Google Scholar
Tortorice, M. D.. “Nondelegation and the Major Questions Doctrine: Displacing Interpretive Power.” Buffalo Law Review 67, no. 4 (August 1, 2019): 1075–1131.Google Scholar
United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 US 549 (Supreme Court 1995).Google Scholar
Rancho Viejo LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
People for Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. United States Fish & Wildlife, 852 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. 2017).Google Scholar
Blumm, M. C.. “Defending the Constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act: The Case of the Utah Prairie Dog.” On the Merits (Washington Legal Foundation), June 5, 2015. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2615357.Google Scholar
May, J. R.. “Healthcare, Environmental Law, and the Supreme Court: An Analysis under the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Tax and Spending Clauses.” Environmental Law 43, no. 2 (2013): 233–254.Google Scholar
Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 US 587 (Supreme Court 1936).Google Scholar
Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (Supreme Court 2017).Google Scholar
Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (Supreme Court 2019).Google Scholar
King v. Burwell, 576 US 473 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar
United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, 140 S. Ct. 1837 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar
Kitrosser, H.. “Accountability in the Deep State.” UCLA Law Review 65 (2018): 1532–1550.Google Scholar
Paul v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 342 (Supreme Court 2019).Google Scholar
Peterson, C. L. “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Law Enforcement: An Empirical Review.” Tulane Law Review 90 (2015): 1057–1112.Google Scholar
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar
Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142, 1149 (10th Cir. 2016).Google Scholar
Manning, J. F.. “What Divides Textualists from Purposivists?” Columbia Law Review 106 (2006): 70–111.Google Scholar
Krishnakumar, A. S.. “Backdoor Purposivism.” Duke Law Journal 69 (2020): 1275–1352.Google Scholar
Michigan v. EPA, 576 US 743 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar
Calabrese, S.. “Trump Might Try to Postpone the Election. That’s Unconstitutional.” New York Times, July 30, 2020.Google Scholar
Scher, B.. “The GOP Traded Its Principles for Conservative Judges.” Washington Post, July 5, 2020.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A.. “The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia.” New Republic, August 24, 2012.Google Scholar
Segall, E.. Originalism as Faith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Whittington, K. E. and Iuliano, J.. “The Myth of the Nondelegation Doctrine.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165, no. 2 (2017): 379–431.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu,138 S. Ct. 1348, 1358–59 (Supreme Court 2018).Google Scholar
New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
Koch Seminar Network. Efforts in Government: Advancing Principled Public Policy. n.d. www.documentcloud.org/documents/4364737-Koch-Seminar-Network.html.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Law
  • Shanti Gamper-Rabindran, University of Pittsburgh
  • Book: America's Energy Gamble
  • Online publication: 06 January 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009039567.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Law
  • Shanti Gamper-Rabindran, University of Pittsburgh
  • Book: America's Energy Gamble
  • Online publication: 06 January 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009039567.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Law
  • Shanti Gamper-Rabindran, University of Pittsburgh
  • Book: America's Energy Gamble
  • Online publication: 06 January 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009039567.010
Available formats
×