Podcast appearances and mentions of major questions doctrine

For years, unelected bureaucrats have stretched vague laws to impose regulations that Congress never explicitly approved. But with a new executive order, President Trump is taking steps to rein in the administrative state and ensure that federal agencies stay within their constitutional limits. In this episode of American Potential, host David From speaks with Ryan Mulvey, Policy Counsel for Americans for Prosperity Foundation, to break down what this executive order means, how it builds on key Supreme Court doctrines, and what impact it could have on federal regulations, agency overreach, and the economy. They discuss: ✅ The Major Questions Doctrine and why it limits bureaucratic power ✅ How the Chevron Doctrine's demise shifts power back to judges and Congress ✅ The role of Congress in making these changes permanent ✅ What this could mean for business owners, taxpayers, and individual freedoms Could this executive order mark a turning point in restoring constitutional balance and limiting government overreach? Tune in for an in-depth conversation on the fight to restore accountability in Washington.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve into the legal complexities of President-Elect Trump's proposed tariffs. Jessica Levinson explores how power over foreign commerce has shifted from Congress to the President, highlighting key laws like the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and the Trade Act of 1974. The episode also covers President Biden's controversial pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, examining the constitutional power of presidential pardons, historical precedents, and political implications. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ Congressional Abdication of Trade Powers: Jessica Levinson points out that Congress has gradually ceded its constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce to the executive branch over the past century. 2️⃣ Legal Hurdles for Trump's Proposed Tariffs: Despite President-elect Trump's promises to impose sweeping tariffs on countries like Mexico, Canada, and China, there are significant legal and procedural hurdles to clear. These include mandatory investigations by the Department of Commerce, and potential court challenges under doctrines like the major questions doctrine and nondelegation doctrine.3️⃣ Presidential Pardons and Political Implications: The episode delves into President Biden's pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, explaining the broad and exclusive presidential power to grant pardons for federal crimes. Resources Mentioned:Jessica's MSNBC articleFollow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode, we are joined by a guest co-host, Leah Kehoe, another member of the International Trade team at Dentons! Leah and Milana interview Tim Meyer, a constitutional law professor at Duke University School of Law, on the effects of the US Supreme Court recently overturning the landmark Chevron decision. Professor Meyer explains the concepts of foreign affairs exceptionalism, the Major Questions Doctrine, IEEPA emergency powers, and the expected uncertainties and certainties in the sanctions space that will follow. Stay tuned until the end for Dentons' International Trade associates' summer update.

Experts will examine the major questions doctrine, its role in regulatory litigation, and its place in administrative law in light of recent developments.Please register and join us for a live webinar on August 14, 2024 at 11 am EST.Featuring: Paul Ray, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage FoundationElliot Gaiser, Ohio Solicitor General(Moderator) Susan Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University

Save Jobs USA v. DHS, No. 23-5089 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 2, 2024)challenging DHS regulations; Washtech; H-4 employment authorization; Major Questions Doctrine; star decisis Jani v. Garland, No. 22-1397 (1st Cir. July 30, 2024)material support of terrorism bar to asylum; fundamental fairness and due process; indiscernible transcript Jemaah Islamiya; appeal of only derivative grant but not lead grant; Chinese ethnicity; Indonesia Dubon v. Jaddau, No. 22-2280 (4th Cir. July 29, 2024)INA § 336(b); naturalization delay; remand to the agency; interlocutory appeal G. C. v. Garland, No. 21-1228 (9th Cir. July 30, 2024)particularly serious crime; consideration of mental health issues; felony assault in violation of Cal. Pen. Code § 245(a)(4); torture in the U.S.; fear of parent; Los Zetas; Mexico Kumar v. Garland, No. 23-308 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024)past persecution standard in the Ninth Circuit; no serious physical harm required; Mann party claims and Punjab; BJP; Sikh; India Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the Show.

Do courts have the expertise to decide on important environmental law issues? Pam Karlan and Rich Ford speak with environmental law expert Debbie Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford, about recent Supreme Court decisions affecting environmental and administrative law--including the Court's decision to overturn decades of settled law by overturning Chevron. What are the implications of the Court's recent blockbuster environmental decisions--the impact on the Clean Air Act, and broader consequences for regulatory agencies and environmental policies. Tune in to explore how these legal shifts could reshape the landscape of environmental regulation in the United States.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Deborah Sivas >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00)  Chapter 1: Introduction and OverviewPam and Rich welcome Professor Debbie Sivas from Stanford's Environmental Law Clinic. They provide an overview of significant Supreme Court cases impacting environmental and administrative law, highlighting the pivotal Loeb or Wright decision that ended Chevron deference.(00:02:06) Chapter 2: Chevron Deference and Its Implications Explained Discussion on the historical context and implications of Chevron deference, with Debbie Sivas explaining its significance and how its removal might affect future legal interpretations and administrative agency power.(00:09:12) Chapter 3: Expert Opinions vs. Judicial InterpretationsExamination of the Supreme Court's approach to statutory interpretation versus agency expertise, highlighting cases like Ohio against EPA and the challenges posed by the court's stance on scientific and technical matters.(00:16:12) Chapter 4: The Role of the Major Questions Doctrine and Non-Delegation DoctrineAnalysis of the Major Questions Doctrine's impact on regulatory power and the potential resurgence of the Non-Delegation Doctrine, focusing on how these legal principles shape environmental policy and agency authority.(00:18:57) Chapter 5: The Ohio Against EPA Case and Its Broader ImplicationsDetailed discussion on the Ohio against EPA case, its current status, and the implications of the Supreme Court's emergency stay decision on future regulatory actions and environmental protections.

Grady Block, an attorney for Mountain States Legal Foundation, discusses the new SEC rule on climate change disclosure and its impact on small businesses. The rule requires SEC registrants to disclose any climate-related information that could have a material impact on their business. Grady explains the challenges and costs associated with compliance and how it will affect not only large companies but also small businesses in their supply chains. He also discusses the main arguments in the legal challenge against the rule, including the major questions doctrine and the arbitrary and capricious action of the SEC. Grady highlights the importance of considering the real-life impact on small business owners in the legal arguments. Main Street Matters is part of the Salem Podcast Network. For more visit JobCreatorsNetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court vs the Regulatory State. Recent Supreme Court rulings may now usher in the largest pushback on the regulatory state since the Reagan Administration. A look at the end of Chevron deference, a revised statute of limitations for challenging government regulations, the Major Questions Doctrine, the right to a jury trial and a District Court injunction against Biden's LNG export moratorium.

It's Hump Day! Sam speaks with Tyler Vasseur, letter carrier and shop steward in the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), Branch 9, to discuss his recent piece in Labor Notes entitled "Momentum for Open Bargaining Grows in the Letter Carriers." Then, Sam speaks with David Dayen, executive editor at the American Prospect, to discuss his recent piece outlining the new FTC rule regarding non-compete clauses, co-authored with Luke Goldstein. First, Sam runs through updates on escalating violence by police and Zionists against anti-war protesters, Netanyahu's imminent invasion of Rafah, the Federal Reserve, Biden drug policy, state abortion bans, New York's special election for Congress, Johnson and Johnson's talc settlement, and labor rights, before watching Mike Johnson and Marjorie Taylor Greene trade shots ahead of a potential motion to vacate the Speakership. Tyler Vasseur then joined, first outlining NALC's union structure and role as one of four postal unions, before exploring the progressive division between the unions – including the desynchronization of their contracts –  under the US' shift into neoliberalism at the end of the 20th Century. Expanding on this, Vasseur explores the concept of “open bargaining,” and what it would mean in terms of activating and mobilizing NALC's base of workers, as well as creating a much more transparent negotiating process. After walking through the major forces driving NALC members' attempt at reform, and touching on the major roles of the US pre-funding mandate for the USPS and the 2008 Financial crisis in crippling industry wages, Tyler wraps up with the inspiring factor of the ongoing union renaissance in the US, and how this project has already begun to reshape organizing efforts within NALC. David Dayen and Sam then look to the absurd evolution of the “non-compete” contract clause, first popularized as a tool to prevent the spread of company secrets among executives, and now used to constrain some 30 million workers in industries from dog grooming to fast food. After expanding on the expansive chunk of our economy crippled by non-compete clauses, David walks us through the ongoing legal battle to overturn the bipartisan ban, how the legacy of Antonin Scalia looms large over this topic, and why the Supreme Court's bogus “Major Questions” Doctrine is central to these arguments. After expanding on the likely evolution of this court battle, Dayen wraps up with a brief update on Live Nation's attempt to court DC insiders with some help from the free (but evidently not priceless) press. And in the Fun Half: Sam parses through yesterday's mass escalation of violence against anti-war student protesters on college campuses across the US, with the NYPD sending a SWAT team to infiltrate the Student occupation of Harold Hall, and police in LA allowing a pro-Israel violent mob assault UCLA protesters, also expanding on the absurd and constant attempts to completely misrepresent these campus protests and the student activists behind them. Jose from Houston calls in with some updates on union business in the transport industry, Marcus from Huntington Beach explores the MAGA takeover of his local government and how to push back, Charlie Kirk shames Zionists for not thinking their grand Jewish conspiracy would come back around to hurt them, and Cory from Florida shares his experiences with the constraints of non-compete clauses. Dave Rubin floats his theory on the jihadists behind public health, and Paul Bet David admonishes a Columbia Student for not knowing NYU's investment portfolio, in his leadup to platforming George Soros conspiracy, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Tyler's piece here: https://labornotes.org/blogs/2024/04/momentum-open-bargaining-grows-letter-carriers Check out the Zoom registration link for the next "Build a Fighting NALC" meeting on Sunday, June 2 at Noon central (10:00 am Pacific, 1:00 pm Eastern): https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZcvceCtqzkqH9zau2xxvNmzfBcO62V-4FfM#/registration Check out all of David's work at the Prospect here: https://prospect.org/topics/david-dayen/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Check out Seder's Seeds here!: https://www.sedersseeds.com/ ALSO, if you have pictures of your Seder's Seeds, send them here!: hello@sedersseeds.com Check out this GoFundMe in support of Mohammed Nasrallah, whose family is trying to leave Gaza for Egypt: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-mohammed-nasserallah-and-family-go-to-egypt Check out this GoFundMe in support of Mohammad Aldaghma's niece in Gaza, who has Down Syndrome: http://tinyurl.com/7zb4hujt Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Get emails on the IRS pilot program for tax filing here!: https://service.govdelivery.com/accounts/USIRS/subscriber/new Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Nuts.com: Right now, https://Nuts.com is offering new customers a free gift with purchase and free shipping on orders of $29 or more at https://Nuts.com/majority. So, go check out all of the delicious options at https://Nuts.com/majority. You'll receive a free gift and free shipping when you spend $29 or more!  That's https://Nuts.com/majority. Express VPN: Protect your online activity TODAY with the VPN rated #1 by CNET and Mashable. Visit my exclusive link https://ExpressVPN.com/majority and you can get an extra 3 months FREE on a one-year package. That's https://ExpressVPN.com/majority to learn more. Aura Frames: Right now, Aura has a great deal for Mother's Day. Listeners can save on the perfect gift by visiting https://AuraFrames.com/MAJORITY to get $30-off plus free shipping on their best-selling frame. That's https://AuraFrames.com/MAJORITY. Use code MAJORITY  at checkout to save. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

In Podcast 73, Dean and Len discuss a recent preliminary injunction issued by a Texas federal judge against the 2023 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rule. This injunction has halted the implementation of the new rule, pending legal proceedings. The court found substantial grounds suggesting the federal banking regulators may have exceeded their authority in expanding CRA evaluation markets and including deposits and other retail banking products under the regulation. The court's decision highlighted four key reasons for this view: the inconsistent interpretation of "entire community" in the new rule, the questionable authority to regulate beyond credit activities, the application of the "Major Questions Doctrine," and a substantial likelihood of plaintiff's success with irreparable harm due to compliance costs. Dean and Len predict a favorable outcome for the plaintiffs, with the case likely progressing to the Supreme Court, prolonging the legal process into 2025. They advise banks to comply with the current rule and suggest banks compute and target the proposed calibrated benchmarks for at least a satisfactory performance rating on the Lending Test. The episode ends with Dean and Len emphasizing the importance of staying informed and prepared as the situation develops. Brought to you by GeoDataVision and M&M Consulting

Episode 12: Crypto Facto with Josh Klayman In this episode of Crypto Facto, Josh Klayman, Linklaters' Head of U.S. Head of Fintech and Head of Blockchain & Digital Assets, is joined by Jeff Cohen, Partner in Linklaters' New York Capital Markets practice. Josh and Jeff discuss how 2024 is shaping-up to be a big year for digital assets. Following the hard-fought approval of a spot Bitcoin ETF, Bitcoin has reached new all-time highs, grabbing the attention of serious institutional players and focusing many on the potential of a future spot Ether ETF. With the recent conviction of Do Kwon and sentencing of Sam Bankman-Fried, the market appears to be putting the turmoil of the past two years squarely behind it. Buoyed by recent successes, including in the DEBT Box case, the crypto industry continues to fight back against regulators, including by taking the offensive in Texas. The Major Questions Doctrine is playing out in the courts, with many predicting that the final word will need to come from the U.S. Supreme Court 

Episode 12: Crypto Facto with Josh Klayman In this episode of Crypto Facto, Josh Klayman, Linklaters' Head of U.S. Head of Fintech and Head of Blockchain & Digital Assets, is joined by Jeff Cohen, Partner in Linklaters' New York Capital Markets practice. Josh and Jeff discuss how 2024 is shaping-up to be a big year for digital assets. Following the hard-fought approval of a spot Bitcoin ETF, Bitcoin has reached new all-time highs, grabbing the attention of serious institutional players and focusing many on the potential of a future spot Ether ETF. With the recent conviction of Do Kwon and sentencing of Sam Bankman-Fried, the market appears to be putting the turmoil of the past two years squarely behind it. Buoyed by recent successes, including in the DEBT Box case, the crypto industry continues to fight back against regulators, including by taking the offensive in Texas. The Major Questions Doctrine is playing out in the courts, with many predicting that the final word will need to come from the U.S. Supreme Court 

Disclosure. Disclosure. Disclosure. In early March, the SEC issued final climate-related disclosure rules for U.S. public companies. Designed to enhance standardization and in response to increasing investor demand, the new rules mandate companies disclose material climate risks they face and greenhouse gas emissions they generate as well as other material climate-related information. While not as comprehensive as existing mandatory climate disclosure regimes in the European Union or California, the rules represent a groundbreaking step forward in climate disclosure across the United States. In this episode, Chad Reed discusses the new rules, their implications and their detractors with Steven Rothstein, managing director at the Ceres Accelerator for Sustainable Capital Markets. Steven and his colleagues at Ceres over two decades have been instrumental in building a large and powerful investor coalition in support of greater climate disclosure and provide crucial insights on this complex and significant public policy issue. Links:SEC Adopts Rules to Enhance and Standardize Climate-Related Disclosures for InvestorsLetter from Jeffrey W. Eckel (then CEO and now Executive Chair of HASI) to U.S. SEC (June 15, 2021)Ceres: Get ready for standardized climate disclosureEpisode recorded March 29, 2024 Email your feedback to Chad, Gil, and Hilary at climatepositive@hasi.com or tweet them to @ClimatePosiPod.

In this episode, Todd Phillips, Assistant Professor at the Georgia State University J. Mack Robinson College of Business, and Beau J. Baumann, a Ph.D. student at Yale Law School, discuss their article "The Major Questions Doctrine's Domain," which will be published in the Brooklyn Law Review. Phillips and Baumann begin by explaining what the major questions doctrine is, how it works, and why it's important. They describe how litigants are challenging SEC enforcement actions against crypto token using MQD-based challenges. And they explain why the MQD shouldn't apply to agency enforcement actions based on judicial interpretations of the scope of agency power, only an agency's own interpretation of its power in the context of legislative rulemaking. Baumann is on Twitter at @beau_baumann and Phillips is on Twitter at @tphillips.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Law Professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman about lingering issues following the Supreme Court's decision in the Biden v. Nebraska student loan case. They discuss a recent paper Shugerman presented at a Gray Center research roundtable, “Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine.”Notes:Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine, Jed Handelsman Shugerman Major Questions About Presidentialism: Untangling the “Chain of Dependence” Across Administrative Law, Jed Handelsman Shugerman and Jodi L. Short Standing Without Injury, Jonathan H. AdlerAn Originalist Defense of the Major Questions Doctrine, Michael D. Ramsey The Major Questions Doctrine: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Remedy, Thomas W. Merrill The Ghosts of Chevron Present and Future, Gary S. Lawson The Major Answers Doctrine, Lisa Heinzerling The New Purpose and Intent in Major Questions Cases, Anita S. Krishnakumar The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, and Confounded, Ronald M. Levin The Minor Questions Doctrine, Aaron L. Nielson The Major Questions Doctrine Outside Chevron‘s Domain, Adam R.F. Gustafson

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Law Professor Michael D. Ramsey about how originalists can defend the major questions doctrine as a substantive canon of interpretation. He examines post-ratification court practice and other substantive canons designed by judges to minimize the harms of judicial error when interpreting ambiguous statutes. Ramsey recently presented a paper […]

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Law Professor Michael D. Ramsey about how originalists can defend the major questions doctrine as a substantive canon of interpretation. He examines post-ratification court practice and other substantive canons designed by judges to minimize the harms of judicial error when interpreting ambiguous statutes. Ramsey recently presented a paper on this subject at a Gray Center research roundtable.Notes:An Originalist Defense of the Major Questions Doctrine, Michael D. Ramsey The Major Questions Doctrine: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Remedy, Thomas W. Merrill The Ghosts of Chevron Present and Future, Gary S. Lawson Biden v. Nebraska: The New State Standing and the (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine, Jed Handelsman Shugerman The Major Answers Doctrine, Lisa Heinzerling The New Purpose and Intent in Major Questions Cases, Anita S. Krishnakumar The Major Questions Doctrine: Unfounded, Unbounded, and Confounded, Ronald M. Levin The Minor Questions Doctrine, Aaron L. Nielson The Major Questions Doctrine Outside Chevron‘s Domain, Adam R.F. Gustafson

Energy lawyer and law school professor William Massey, at 10 years the longest-serving commissioner ever at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, discusses the vast body of legal precedent finding FERC has expansive authority under the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act, and reviews pending cases before the Supreme Court that may test whether this expansive view of FERC's authority will continue under the court's new Major Questions Doctrine."The courts have said FERC's authority is at its zenith when it comes to remedying undue discrimination. And FERC has remembered that and bases many of its policy choices on finding undue discrimination in either natural gas or electricity markets," Massey says. "We'll have to wait and see whether this Major Questions Doctrine, as it plays out over the next few years, whether it limits FERC's authority in certain ways."Massey also speaks to FERC's early days restructuring natural gas and electricity markets in the 1990s, the vast economic benefits that consumers have accrued as a result, and suggests that opening up the electricity sector to greater competitive forces will help policy makers bring about the clean-energy transition in response to the climate change threat at least cost to consumers.Support the show

It's Hump Day! Sam and Emma speak with Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent at Vox, to discuss some of the biggest cases before the Supreme Court this term. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on the Biden Administration's internal reckoning with their strategic failures in support of Israel, the US' minor aid to Gaza and minuscule conditions to punish violent settlers, the House's antisemitic antisemitism bill, Tommy Tuberville relinquishing his obstructive hold on military appointments, the Senate's aid to Ukraine and Israel, the upcoming GOP Debate, and the continuing extreme temperature of 2023, before parsing through the insanity of the House's “anti-zionism is antisemitism” bill, with some help from Jewish Rep. Jerrold Nadler. Ian Milhiser then joins, diving right into an assessment of the impending Supreme Court decision on Moore v. US, a case that will define the possibility of a federal wealth tax as conservatives attempt to tie the taxation of unrealized sums to the apportionment clause in the constitution. After walking through what apportionment, unrealized sums, and “direct taxation” could mean (with some help from Sonya Sotomayor), Milhiser walks Sam and Emma through the newest SCOTUS case involving the “Major Questions Doctrine” – tackling what that doctrine entails, and why the 5th circuit is using it to put the SEC, and the administrative state writ large, in their crosshairs, before working through the 5th Circuit's prominent role working under a conservative Supreme Court, and where Chief Justice Roberts, himself, stands on the doctrine. Wrapping up, they explore the upcoming case against Perdue Pharmaceuticals – as the Sacklers attempt to shirk their liabilities onto the business – and the First Amendment attacks on the BDS movement. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma discuss the official denial of Cenk Uygur's presidential candidacy, watch Dana Bash attempt to throw Rep. Jayapal – and Palestinian victims of sexual assault – under the bus to maintain her narrative, which Ryan Grim refuses to let go unacknowledged. They watch Israeli President Isaac Herzog attempt to defend the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians under pretexts of Hamas' supposed drive for global domination, and Tim Pool and Matt Walsh really sink into their respective niches of bigotry, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Ian's work here: https://www.vox.com/authors/ian-millhiser Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Nutrafol: Take the first step to visibly thicker, healthier hair. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners ten dollars off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to https://Nutrafol.com/men and enter the promo code TMR.  Find out why over 4,000 healthcare professionals recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. That's https://Nutrafol.com/menNutrafol.com slash men, promo code TMR. Givewell: If you've never donated through GiveWell before, you can have your donation matched up to ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS before the end of the year or as long as matching funds last. To claim your match, go to https://givewell.org and pick PODCAST and enter The Majority Report with Sam Seder at checkout. Make sure they know that you heard about GiveWell from The Majority Report with Sam Seder to get your donation matched .Again, that's https://givewell.org to donate or find out more. Manukora Honey: If you head to https://manukora.com/MAJORITY, you can get $25 off their Starter Kit which comes with the MGO 850+ Manuka honey, a FREE travel pack honey sticks, a FREE wooden spoon and also a FREE guidebook! It's the perfect gift for a loved one this holiday season! Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Professor Chris Walker stops by Supreme Myths to discuss all things administrative law including the Chevron Doctrine, the Major Questions Doctrine, and much more. He also reveals why he's not a con law professor!

Professor Andrea Katz stops by Supreme Myths to discuss Presidential Power, the Unitary Executive Theory, the Major Questions Doctrine, and much more!

On this Episode of A Hard Look, ALR Senior Technology Editor Bennett J. Nuss interviews Professor Daniel Cohen regarding the current rise of Major Questions Doctrine in American Jurisprudence in contrast to the perceived fall of Chevron Doctrine. The conversation goes from an interrogation of current judicial review methods for agency action, to investigating potential issues with Major Questions Doctrine, and concluding with thoughts about the future of judicial deference and the balance of powers as we know them. --- This episode was produced by ALR Technology Editor, Anthony Aviza. If you have any questions about this episode, the guest, the podcast, or if you would like to propose a topic or guest, please e-mail Bennett Nuss at ALR-Sr-Tech-Editor@wcl.american.edu Many thanks to ALR Editor-in-Chief Madison Gestiehr and Senior Articles Editor Mehraz Rahman for their assistance in providing the transcription for this Episode. --- Recommended Reading This Episode's Transcript Chevron v. Natural Recourses Defense Council Skidmore v. Swift Public Water Supply Co. v. DiPasquale FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. King v. Burwell Alabama Association of Realtors v. HHS NFIB v. OSHA West Virginia v. EPA Biden v. Nebraska

On this day in legal history, October 11, 1872, Chief Justice Harlan Stone was born – but he wasn't born the Chief Justice. He was appointed much later when he was an adult. Harlan Fiske Stone was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1925 to 1941 and then as the 12th Chief Justice of the United States from 1941 until his death in 1946. Born on October 11, 1872, in Chesterfield, New Hampshire, Stone was initially a law professor and later the dean at Columbia Law School. He was appointed by President Calvin Coolidge to the Supreme Court and was later elevated to Chief Justice by Franklin D. Roosevelt.One of Stone's significant contributions to American jurisprudence came in the case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945). In this landmark decision, the mere name of which gives anyone who attended law school hives, Stone formulated the "minimum contacts" test, which has become a cornerstone in the area of personal jurisdiction in civil cases. The ruling clarified the circumstances under which an out-of-state corporation could be subject to the jurisdiction of local courts, thereby modernizing jurisdictional rules to fit a growing national economy.Stone is perhaps best known for his "Footnote Four" in the landmark case of United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), which laid the groundwork for the modern tiers of judicial scrutiny and the protection of minority rights. He also authored the majority opinion in the case of United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), which upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act and confirmed Congress's power to regulate labor conditions.Another case that drew significant attention during Stone's tenure was Korematsu v. United States (1944). Although Stone did not write the majority opinion, he was part of the court that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. This decision has been widely criticized for its stance on civil liberties and is often cited as a low point in the Court's history. Stone's own views on the case have been the subject of much scholarly debate, given his generally liberal leanings on civil rights issues.Stone was known for his judicial integrity and liberal jurisprudence, often siding with Justices Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo on progressive interpretations of the Constitution. His tenure as Chief Justice was marked by a number of key decisions that expanded civil liberties and federal power, shaping American constitutional law for generations to come.The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from 12 Republican-led states challenging the Biden administration's estimates for the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions. The high court left in place a federal appeals court decision, stating that the states, led by Missouri, lacked the legal standing to sue as they hadn't suffered a concrete injury. The Biden administration's estimates are intended to guide federal agencies in assessing the climate impact of various projects and in formulating new regulations. These estimates could influence a wide range of sectors, including oil and gas, agriculture, and construction. The decision follows a previous Supreme Court action that blocked an attempt to reinstate former President Trump's less stringent cost-estimation policy.Supreme Court Rejects GOP-Led States on Biden Climate EstimatesThe U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to review the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) decision to reject Avail Vapor's application for marketing flavored e-cigarettes. Avail Vapor had argued that the FDA altered its application process for new tobacco products at the last minute, leading to a 99% rejection rate for e-cigarette applications. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had previously sided with the FDA, stating that Avail failed to demonstrate that its products offered benefits to adults that outweighed the risks to young people. Avail contends that many adult smokers use e-cigarettes as a quitting aid. FDA Win on Flavored E-Cigarettes Won't Be Undone by JusticesIn an unusual legal move, Judge Jerry E. Smith of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit added what he called the "opinion that should have been issued" to his dissent in a death penalty case. The majority decision had maintained a pause on a Texas man's scheduled execution, a decision Smith labeled as "grave error." Instead of elaborating on his dissent, Smith attached an opinion styled as a majority ruling, even including the names of the other two judges on the panel. Texas prosecutors later cited Smith's opinion in their request to the Supreme Court to proceed with the execution, which was subsequently granted.Legal experts have noted that this approach is atypical. Tad Bartlett, an attorney who has reviewed all of the Fifth Circuit's decisions over the past three years, said he had never seen a dissenting opinion formatted this way. He speculated that Smith's opinion might have initially been a draft that became a dissent when it was clear he didn't have the majority support. Given the expedited nature of death penalty cases, Smith may have retained the original formatting to save time.The majority ruling indicated that another judge on the panel, Judge James E. Graves Jr., would issue his own concurring opinion, which was later included in an amended majority opinion. Stacy Rogers Sharp, an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, warned that Smith's unusual approach could blur the lines between what is or is not the law, potentially undermining the majority opinion.Fifth Circuit Judge Adds Alternate Majority Opinion to Dissent (2)Legal experts predict that the U.S. Supreme Court may narrow or even overturn the Chevron Doctrine, a precedent that has significantly shaped the modern administrative state. The doctrine, established in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, allows courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Bertrall Ross, a law professor, suggests that the Court is also likely to use the major questions and non-delegation doctrines to further limit agency power. A ruling that diminishes Chevron deference would require courts to interpret statutes more frequently and could create additional legislative work for Congress.Professor Allison Orr Larsen believes that the Court may limit Chevron deference to cases involving "genuine ambiguities" in statutory text. Ross adds that Congress might have to revisit statutes regularly if agencies can't resolve ambiguities. He also notes that the Court's recent decisions indicate a preference for major political issues to be handled by Congress rather than agencies. Meaghan VerGow, a legal partner, points out that another case, SEC v. Jarkesy, raises questions about the president's ability to remove administrative law judges, which could potentially create due process issues.Avid fans of Minimum Competence will remember we did a special Max Min episode on both Chevron Deference and the Major Questions Doctrine. Expect Narrowing of Chevron Doctrine, High Court Watchers SayThe fraud trial of Sam Bankman-Fried, related to the collapse of his FTX cryptocurrency exchange, is set to continue with further testimony from Caroline Ellison, a key witness and former co-head of Bankman-Fried's hedge fund, Alameda Research. Ellison has already testified that she was part of a multi-billion-dollar conspiracy led by Bankman-Fried to defraud FTX customers, investors, and lenders. She is among three former insiders who have pleaded guilty to fraud and are cooperating with prosecutors. Ellison revealed that the hedge fund used about $10 billion in FTX customer funds to repay debts and make investments.She also stated that Bankman-Fried, who is her former boss and occasional romantic partner, was indifferent to the risks associated with Alameda's lending and investment strategies. Prosecutors allege that Bankman-Fried misused billions in customer funds to support Alameda, purchase real estate, and donate over $100 million to U.S. political campaigns. Bankman-Fried has pleaded not guilty to the charges, arguing that while he made mistakes, he did not intend to steal funds.In his opening statement, defense lawyer Mark Cohen urged jurors to question the credibility of cooperating witnesses like Ellison, suggesting they might be reinterpreting past decisions to appear more nefarious. Gary Wang, FTX's former technology chief, also testified that Bankman-Fried falsely claimed FTX was stable as it faced a surge in withdrawal demands. The trial, which could last up to six weeks, is also expected to feature testimony from another cooperating witness, former FTX engineering chief Nishad Singh.Sam Bankman-Fried's trial to resume with more testimony from Caroline Ellison | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Happy Monday! Sam and Emma speak with Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent at Vox, to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court term. Then, they're joined by litigator Mark Bankston who has a special announcement! First, Sam and Emma run through updates on our 45-day reprieve from a government shutdown, the ongoing chaos among the House GOP despite that, Gov. Newsome's disappointing unilateral action, Donald Trump's fraud case, and labor action nationwide, before parsing through commentary on the House GOP's absurd power struggle. Ian Millhiser then joins, diving right into this Supreme Court term's primary challenges to the administrative state – namely Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo – exploring the lasting governance of the Chevron Doctrine's deference to government agencies, and the sudden emergence of the anti-democratic “Major Questions Doctrine” that the Court has been using to undermine any “major” decisions by government agencies (including student debt reform). After parsing through the evolution of these two doctrines (and the jurisprudence backing them up) and how Loper might see SCOTUS move onto the “Micromanaging Questions Doctrine,” Millhiser walks Sam and Emma through the radicalization of the US' 5th Circuit over the Donald Trump administration, exploring how the GOP was able to blockade Obama's appointments and confirm Trump's en-masse. Wrapping up, Ian, Sam, and Emma tackle the far-right decisions coming out of the 5th Circuit, and what (if anything) the Supreme Court will do to keep their underlings in line. After Sam and Emma quickly parse through Jamaal Bowman's ongoing Congressional debacle, they're joined by Mark Bankston to discuss his representation of Ben Brody in a defamation case against Elon Musk, parsing through the issue at hand, what libel cases entail, and the vast damages that can come from the abuse of one's public station. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma tackle the madness surrounding the still-impending government shutdown, dive a little deeper into the unsurprisingly racist coverage of Jamaal Bowman… pulling a fire alarm, and assess Biden's recent statement on the Civil Rights Act. Next, they dive deep into Gavin Newsom's astounding decision to name Laphonza Butler – a fundraiser who's never held public office – to Dianne Feinstein's Senate Seat over the over-deserving Barbara Lee, before Owen from LA helps parse through Butler's past, Dan from CA provides some good ol' unproductive libertarian debate, and Hannah from San Diego dives into the absurdity of the rental market as a military-civilian. Check out Ian's work here: https://www.vox.com/authors/ian-millhiser Find out more about Mark here: https://fbtrial.com/attorneys/mark-bankston/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: CozyEarth: My audience can SAVE UP TO 40% on Cozy Earth TODAY. Go to https://CozyEarth.com and enter my promo code MAJORITY at checkout to SAVE UP TO 40% NOW! Try ‘em for 100 nights. If you don't feel the difference, send ‘em back for a full refund! That's https://CozyEarth.com, promo code MAJORITY. Sunset Lake CBD: Sunsetlakecbd is a majority employee owned farm in Vermont, producing 100% pesticide free CBD products. October 1st was International Coffee Day and Sunset Lake CBD is celebrating with a sale on their best-selling Farmer's Roast CBD Coffee. Today, when you go to https://sunsetlakecbd.com use code “Coffee” and you'll save 30% on all one-time purchases of their delicious dark-roasted whole-bean coffee. Don't forget to use coupon code “leftisbest” for 20% off everything else! Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Join us for an in-depth exploration into the SEC's recent lawsuit against Coinbase – a case that will no doubt influence the legal landscape of crypto asset trading and securities laws well into the future.The SEC alleges that Coinbase has operated its trading platform as an unregistered exchange, broker, and clearing agency, and further contends that Coinbase's staking-as-a-service program has been unlawfully engaged in securities offerings. On the other hand, Coinbase has challenged the classification of digital currencies as 'investment contracts' and has invoked the Major Questions Doctrine to question the SEC's authority to regulate without affirmative Congressional authorization.Join Paul Grewal from Coinbase, Stephen Palley from Brown Rudnick LLP, and Professor J.W. Verret from George Mason University as they discuss regulators' approach towards this burgeoning asset class, the legal arguments at play in the SEC's lawsuit, and the broader implications of the case going forward.Featuring:- Paul Grewal, Chief Legal Officer, Coinbase- Stephen Palley, Partner, Brown Rudnick LLP- Moderator: J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Todd Phillips, assistant professor at Georgia State University's Robinson College of Business, joins the Business Scholarship Podcast to discuss his article The Major Questions Doctrine's Domain, which he co-authored with Beau Baumann of Yale University. In this article, Phillips and Baumann explain that the Supreme Court's novel Major-Questions Doctrine does not apply in cases in which executive agencies bring judicial enforcement actions or seek to apply judicial precedent. In making their case, they use challenges to the Securities and Exchange Commission's crypto enforcement actions as a case study.

The “major questions doctrine,” cited to invalidate student loan forgiveness, empowers the conservative Supreme Court to veto any executive action with broad social impact. Its goal is to undermine the government's ability function and aid average people. Show Links Source Article --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/newsdive/support

Coinbase argues that crypto is a "major question" that requires Congress to explicitly authorize the SEC to oversee. Enjoying this content? SUBSCRIBE to the Podcast: https://pod.link/1438693620 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/nathanielwhittemorecrypto Subscribeto the newsletter: https://breakdown.beehiiv.com/ Join the discussion: https://discord.gg/VrKRrfKCz8 Follow on Twitter: NLW: https://twitter.com/nlw Breakdown: https://twitter.com/BreakdownNLW

On August 4, 202, Coinbase filed a brief in support of its motion to dismiss the SEC's lawsuit. This podcast provides an audio version of the brief, along with key takeaways and points made within it. Show highlights: [1:00] Preliminary Statement [6:30] Background on the SEC's charges [11:30] Coinbase's argument for dismissal [13:00] Because the complaint alleges no contractual undertaking beyond the point of sale, no investment contract is pleaded [22:00] The SEC misreads Howey in asserting that a scheme without a contractual undertaking will suffice [29:00] Recent cases do not support the SEC's efforts to use scheme as an escape hatch from statutory text [33:00] The SEC's effort to portray a simple asset sale as a security is an unprecedented stretch [41:00] Any future value that token purchasers on Coinbase and through Prime may hope to reap is not in the profit, income or assets of the issuers business [42:00] The Major Questions Doctrine compels rejection of the SEC's construction of investment contract [49:00] Coinbase is entitled to judgment on the claim that it acts as an unregistered broker through Wallet [50:00] Coinbase is entitled to judgment on the claim that its staking services constitute unregistered securities

In this episode, Alfredo Ortiz, Elaine Parker, and Karen Harned discuss various legal cases and issues related to small businesses and the American dream. They focus on a recent Supreme Court decision on student loan forgiveness and Job Creators Network's involvement in challenging the administration's program. They also highlight other cases that demonstrate the administration's overreach and emphasize the need for accountability and upholding the Constitution. The speakers delve into the problems with college tuition and student loans, advocating for accountability, measurement of success, and finding solutions. They express hope for positive changes and stress the importance of holding the administration accountable.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

On Friday, June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Biden v. Nebraska. The case arose after President Biden enacted a plan to cancel between $10,000 and $20,000 in student loans for qualified borrowers through executive action. The Biden Administration argued that the Secretary of Education was granted the authority to forgive student loans in the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the HEROES Act does not grant the Secretary of Education the authority to establish a student loan forgiveness program discharging approximately $430 billion in student loans and affecting nearly all borrowers. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion; Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion focused primarily on the Major Questions Doctrine; Justice Kagan filed the dissenting opinion.Please join us as Jesse Panuccio discusses the decision.

Happy Monday! Sam and Emma speak with Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer at Slate, to discuss the bombshell rulings that came down at the end of the Supreme Court's most recent term. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine and outside support, the future of a government shutdown, the Supreme Court ethics bill, climate change, labor action, and more theocratic fascism from the right, before diving into the anniversary of the Tusla White Supremacist massacre of a massive Black community, and the Oklahoman Right's ongoing effort to revise history. Mark Joseph Stern then joins as he tackles the rollout of the Supreme Court's most recent session, beginning with moderate cases in June before rapidly dropping vitriolic right-wing decisions right before the July 4th break, effectively helping to bury the disastrous role the Court is continuing to play in US politics. Next, he, Sam, and Emma parse through the individual roles the liberal justices on the Court have assumed, before Stern walks through SCOTUS' recent rejection of Student Debt Cancellation via the HEROES Act, why the Court relied on the Major Questions Doctrine, and whether the Biden Administration's pivot to the Higher Education Act could be successful. After a discussion on 303 Creative v. Elenis, the absurd lack of standing in the case, and how it largely undermines Lawrence v. Texas (Sodomy Law), Emma, Sam, and Mark wrap up the interview by assessing the affirmative action decision, and Clarence Thomas' ultimate decision to limit active diversity to the military. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma dive into the Biden Administration's advancement of war crimes in Ukraine, sending cluster bombs in the face of decades of research to their devastating civilian impact, UPS Teamsters begin assembling the ranks for an upcoming strike, and Donald Trump gets very confused about who absolutely should be in jail and who absolutely shouldn't. Keith from Ashville dives into recent experiences with transphobic in public (and how to deal with them) and Jonuh from Richmond brings up debate tactics online vs. irl. Cody from Denver shares his experiences with the devastating real-world impact of transphobia on individuals and their communities, and inspires a discussion of the absolute need to be a militant advocate for marginalized communities, particularly in the face of escalating political persecution and bad faith attempts to justify them. Plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Mark's work at Slate here: https://slate.com/author/mark-joseph-stern Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Cozy Earth: For a limited time, SAVE up to 40% on Cozy Earth. Go to https://CozyEarth.com/MAJORITY and enter MAJORITY at checkout to SAVE up to 40% now! Try ‘em for 100 nights. If you don't sleep cooler, send ‘em back for a full refund! That's https://CozyEarth.com/MAJORITY. Sunset Lake CBD: sunsetlakecbd is a majority employee owned farm in Vermont, producing 100% pesticide free CBD products. Great company, great product and fans of the show! Use code Leftisbest and get 20% off at http://www.sunsetlakecbd.com. Starting today, you can save 35% on all Sunset Lake CBD's tinctures— even tinctures for your pets! Now is a great time to stock up folks. Visit https://SunsetLakeCBD.com and use code TINCTURE at checkout. This deal ends Monday, July 17th. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Rejection of Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan suggests Supreme Court conservatives are going to be more comfortable with second-guessing federal agency determinations even when they fall within a federal statute. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what he's calling the "supersized" Major Questions Doctrine, the high court-made principle that's risen in recent terms and was the reasoning behind the 6-3 ruling in Biden v. Nebraska. Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners beyond the headlines of the biggest opinions of the term. They also look ahead to the one starting in October which Winkler says is shaping up as another with blockbuster potential on guns and the SEC to start with. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Court reinvigorated the “Major Questions Doctrine” of administrative law. Given the Federal Trade Commission’s efforts to expand its rulemaking powers under Section 5 of the FTC Act and the likely return of the “net neutrality” fight at the […]

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the Court reinvigorated the "Major Questions Doctrine" of administrative law. Given the Federal Trade Commission's efforts to expand its rulemaking powers under Section 5 of the FTC Act and the likely return of the "net neutrality" fight at the Federal Communications Commission once a third Democratic commissioner is confirmed, this webinar explored how the reinvigorated "Major Questions Doctrine" may impact tech and telecom policy.Featuring:- Ian Heath Gershengorn, Partner and Chair, Appellate & Supreme Court Practice, Jenner & Block LLP; Former Acting Solicitor General- Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals Practice, Wiley Rein LLP; Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission- Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Partner and Chair, Antitrust & Competition Practice, Baker Botts LLP; Former Acting Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission- Christopher J. Wright, Partner and Co-Chair, Issues & Appeals Practice, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP; Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission- Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies

What is the Supreme Court's “shadow docket” and why does it matter? Preet speaks with Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law and the author of “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.”  References & Supplemental Materials: Steve Vladeck, “The Shadow Docket,” Barnes & Noble, 5/16/23 “Major Questions Doctrine,” Congressional Research Service, 11/2/22 FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Supreme Court, 4/21/23 Stay Tuned in Brief is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Please write to us with your thoughts and questions at letters@cafe.com, or leave a voicemail at 669-247-7338. For analysis of recent legal news, try the CAFE Insider membership for just $1 for one month: cafe.com/insider. Check out other CAFE shows Now & Then and Up Against the Mob.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's News Day Tuesday! Sam catches up on some of the biggest stories of the day, as well as some he missed while he was out. First, he runs through updates on the launching of the Fox-Dominion trial, the Mifepristone ban, the GOP's support for Dianne Feinstein, the WGA overwhelmingly authorizing a strike, the White House's role in the recent Child Labor revelations, continuing gun violence in the US, Sudan's ceasefire failing to materialize, and Karen Bass' anti-homelessness project. Next, Sam dives a little deeper into the absurdity of allowing Dianne Feinstein to continue her reign, Samuel Alito putting the Mifepristone hold on hold, why his own precedents delegitimize the ban, and whether the Major Questions Doctrine will come into play, before touching on the potential next step for the conservative judiciary: trans healthcare. Then, he walks through a recent New York Times article on the rise of the right wing's obsession with transphobia, why it (unsurprisingly) ignores the role of liberal institutions – such as the New York Times – in legitimizing this rise, and refuses to acknowledge the negative electoral impact this bigotry has had. Wrapping up the first half, Sam and the MR crew run through the White House's role in the recent child labor crisis, the central role undocumented children play, and why Arkansas' new child labor laws put migrant kids at risk. And in the Fun Half: Amy from Oregon dives into the inside perspective on the science behind trans healthcare, Ron DeSantis releases a defensive ad in response to Trump's attacks, Ben Shapiro worries that Elsa might be gay, and the right offers its first anti-monopoly stance: break up big beer! Eric from San Diego reflects on the 75th anniversary of the Nakba, San from Texas discusses the local impact of rising Christian Nationalism in politics, and Clark from Houston discusses the inflaming genocidal rhetoric from the right. Sam also touches on the Ali Alexander revelations, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out the U.S. Palestinian Community Network (USPCN) here: https://uspcn.org/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Seder's Seeds!: Sam tried to grow some cannabis last year, didn't know what he was doing, but now has some great cannabis seeds! Use code "420" and you'll get a free pack of "Trainwreck" seeds (enter Trainwreck manually in your cart)! Go to http://www.sedersseeds.com and MajorityReporters will get an automatic 15% off. Enter coupon code "SEEDS" for free shipping! Stamps.com: Taking trips to the Post Office is probably not how you want to spend your time. – that's why you should mail and ship online at Stamps dot com., the place where you get the services of the Post Office and UPS all in one place. There's NO risk - and with my promo code, MAJORITYREPORT, you get a special offer that includes a 4-week trial PLUS free postage and a digital scale. Just go to https://www.stamps.com/, click on the Microphone at the TOP of the homepage and type in MAJORITYREPORT - that's https://www.stamps.com/, promo code MAJORITYREPORT. Stamps.com - never go to the post office again. Shopify: Scaling your business is a journey of endless possibility. Shopify is here to help, with tools and resources that make it easy for any business to succeed from down the street to around the globe. Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/majority! Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Various options are at play in the EPA's planned greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants. In this episode, Lissa Lynch of NRDC discusses the implications.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsA couple of weeks ago, the policy analysts at the Rhodium Group put out a new report showing that the Biden administration's legislative achievements are not quite enough to get it to its Paris climate goals. But those goals could be reached if the legislation is supplemented with smart executive action.Some of the most important upcoming executive actions are EPA's greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants. The Supreme Court famously struck down Obama's Clean Power Plan — his attempt to address existing power plants — judging it impermissibly expansive. So now EPA has to figure out what to ask of individual plants.The agency's decisions will help shape the future of the US power sector and determine whether the Biden administration gets on track for its climate goals. To talk through those decisions in more detail, I contacted Lissa Lynch, who runs the Federal Legal Group at the NRDC's Climate & Clean Energy Program. We discussed the options before the EPA, the viability of carbon capture and hydrogen as systems of pollution reduction, and whether Biden will have time to complete all the regulatory work that remains.Alright. With no further ado, Lissa Lynch from NRDC. Welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.Lissa LynchThank you for having me.David RobertsThis is a subject that I used to spend a lot of time thinking about back in the day, and it's sort of receded for a while, and now it's back. So it's very exciting for a nerd like me. So I want to just quickly walk through some history with this and then sort of hand it off to you so you can tell us where things stand now, because I don't want to assume that listeners have been obsessively following this now nearly two decade long saga. So let me just run through some history really briefly. So listeners will recall in 2007, there's a big Supreme Court case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, in which the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is eligible to be listed as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act if EPA determines it is a threat to human health.And then shortly thereafter, Obama's EPA officially determined that it is a threat to human health via the endangerment finding. So this is one thing I'm not sure everybody understands, and I just want to get it on the table up front. So for context, the combination of those two things, Mass vs. EPA, plus the endangerment finding, means that EPA is lawfully obliged to regulate greenhouse gases. This is not a choice. This is not something it can do or not do, depending on how it feels or who's president. They have to do it. So then that triggers the obligation, three separate obligations.You have to regulate mobile sources, which Obama did with his new fuel economy regulations, which are still in place, as far as I know. Then you have to regulate new stationary sources of greenhouse gases, which Obama did. And as far as I know, we can come back to this in a second, but as far as I know, those new power plant regulations that Obama passed are still in effect. And then thirdly, you have to regulate existing stationary sources of greenhouse gases, which mainly means power plants. And so Obama's effort to regulate existing power plants is called the Clean Power Plan.People may remember the fuss and ado about the Clean Power Plan as it was under development. Lawsuits were immediately launched. Of course, the Supreme Court took the extremely unusual step of putting the law on hold, basically not letting it go into implementation until it had heard this case. And then it heard the case, rejected the Clean Power Plan on the basis of the newly dreamed up, rectally, extracted Major Questions Doctrine. So that's where we stand now is we've got the mobile regs in place, although Biden is updating those too. I think we've got the new power plant regs in place, although Biden is also updating those.But as for existing power plant regulations, there are basically none. It's been a legal mire and so Biden's got to do those too. So let's talk about what Supreme Court said about the Clean Power Plan in their ruling and how that constrains the sort of solution space that we're looking at now.Lissa LynchSo in West Virginia vs. EPA, that was the Supreme Court decision from last summer. The Supreme Court held that this section of the Clean Air Act that we're talking about here, section 111, does not clearly provide authority for the approach that EPA took in the Clean Power Plan. And what they did there we sort of refer to as generation shifting. In the Clean Power Plan, EPA looked at the power sector as a whole and they concluded that the best system for reducing fossil-fuel-fired power plant emissions was a combination of measures including shifting generation away from dirtier fossil power toward cleaner power.So essentially retiring dirtier power plants and replacing them with renewables.David RobertsRight. So the unit of analysis here was a state's whole power fleet, not the power plant individual, but the whole power fleet.Lissa LynchRight. And the reasoning for that in the Clean Power Plan context was supported by the companies themselves, the power companies themselves and the states who said, yes, this is the way that we are dealing with decarbonizing our fleets. We are looking out across our whole fleets, retiring the dirtiest sources and replacing them with cleaner generation. That's how the existing RGGI program in California cap-and-trade programs work. That's how many of the power companies that have emission reduction or clean energy targets are doing that.David RobertsAnd let's just say Republicans have been saying for decades that regulations are too restrictive and they're not flexible enough and states and power companies need flexibility. And this was perfectly flexible. This is absolutely as flexible as you could make a system. It just said to the state, do whatever you want to do to lower the average emissions of your power plant fleet. And then conservatives got what they wanted and hated it for other reasons.Lissa LynchOne of the things that's important about what is left on the table after this decision is there is still a considerable amount of flexibility on the compliance side. So what the Supreme Court was really dealing with was the method EPA uses for setting the level of the standard, basically setting the target that industry has to meet. So the Supreme Court explicitly took that generation shifting approach off the table for purposes of setting the level of the standard itself. And so after this decision, EPA can still set standards, in John Roberts words, "Based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly."David RobertsRight? So the idea here is EPA, by interpreting the Clean Air Act in such a way as to apply to the power plant fleet overall, and sort of telling states how they have to shape their overall power plant fleets. EPA was assuming too much authority, basically. Like doing something major, despite too major for the words in the Clean Air Act, which I don't want to dwell on this too long, but let's just pause here to acknowledge that. No one then in the ruling, now in the subsequent ruling, since then in all scholarship knows what the hell "major" means or when it is that an agency has crossed the line from proper regulatory interpretation into "Oops, too major."It really just kind of sounds like and seems that major means anything bigger than John Roberts is comfortable with.Lissa LynchRight? I mean, this is one of the really concerning things about the Major Questions Doctrine, just generally is that it is murky and it does have this sort of paralyzing effect on ...David RobertsYes, intentionally.Lissa LynchExactly. It is explicitly anti-regulatory and explicitly sort of intended to stop agencies in their tracks and make them question, oh, is this too major?David RobertsAnd there's no answer. Right. So naturally you're going to be cautious because there's no definition of major. It's just whatever irritates John Roberts when he wakes up one day. So this was the opening salvo, I think, in a longer Supreme Court effort basically to brow-beat agencies into being timid. So anyway, point being EPA can't use the overall power fleet as a sort of benchmark through which to set this standard. So what does that leave? What's the sort of range of motion that we think we still can act in here when we're talking about these new standards?Lissa LynchSo now that we have this Supreme Court decision in place. EPA's got some guidelines, and they can base the next round of standards on, as Justice Roberts put it, measures that make the plants operate more cleanly. So what they're looking for now is a rule that looks more like what traditional pollution regulations of the past looked like based on scrubbers, bag houses, the stuff that you can physically attach onto the plant or do at the plant itself to reduce that plant's emissions. When it comes to reducing CO2 emissions, the options are limited.David RobertsWell, let me pause there. Before we get into that, I just want to say one thing that I learned from your writing that I had not known, and I don't know that it's widely known. So there's been talk ever since Mass vs. EPA that bugged conservatives, and they would love to undo that, right? Because they would just love to moot this whole thing by undoing that ruling and saying that CO2 is outside the context of the Clean Air Act and have been muttering about doing that. So the Inflation Reduction Act statutorily locks into place that ruling.Right. It says explicitly CO2 qualifies under the Clean Air Act, and it instructs EPA to develop new standards. So there's no ambiguity about that. And it says EPA needs to set standards that are going to reduce emissions relative to baseline, where the new baseline is taking the Inflation Reduction Act itself and all its subsidies into account. So it's telling EPA calculate what all these subsidies are going to do, what the new sort of business as usual trajectory of emissions would be, and then develop regulations that reduce it further. I didn't know any of that.Lissa LynchYeah, no, this is huge. And I mean, obviously the Inflation Reduction Act is enormous. It is going to accelerate the clean energy progress that we've seen in the last decade or so by many fold. It is a huge, huge deal. And one of the provisions in this quite large law essentially reaffirms EPA's not only statutory authority, but its obligation to go ahead and set CO2 emission standards for fossil-fuel-fired power plants. And so that's a clear statement from Congress last year.David RobertsClear enough even for John Roberts.Lissa LynchRight. So we have always thought that that authority and obligation under the statute was quite clear, but now it's crystal clear, and they need to move.David RobertsAnd I think it's also important to absorb this new baseline idea, because the IRA itself and all the historical progress since the last round of these regs, the new expected baseline for power plant emissions is much lower now than it was when Oobama's EPA was calculating these things. Which commensurately means you're going to need tighter standards if you want to reduce further than that new baseline.Lissa LynchYeah. And it is kind of wild to look back on ten years ago. So it was ten years ago, 2013, that President Obama announced in his big climate change speech that he was directing his EPA to go ahead and set carbon pollution reduction standards under Section 111 for fossil-fuel-fired power plants. The first time that was being done. So much has changed in ten years in the power sector. And I think anyone listening to this podcast knows we are smack in the midst of a clean energy transition in the power industry. Industry itself says so.The Edison Electric Institute says we are, quote, "In the middle of a profound long term transformation in how energy is generated, transmitted and used." Lazard, the investment firm, estimates that wind costs have fallen by 46%, solar has fallen by 77% over the past decade. So we're just in a totally different world now than we were ten years ago. And so we passed the Clean Power Plan's 2030 emission reduction targets in 2019 without the Clean Power Plan ever having gone into effect.David RobertsWhich in retrospect makes all the Republican arguments about how this is an economy killing regulation and it's too strong and it's unrealistic and there's no way we can move that fast look utterly ludicrous, which we all said at the time, but we had to pretend that it was a real live argument. So they're saying it's too stringent, it's going to destroy the economy. And here we rocketed past it in 2019 without any regs.Lissa LynchRight? And that is part and parcel with each time. There are new ambitious pollution standards set ...David RobertsEvery time.Lissa LynchUnder the Clean Air Act, industry claims the sky is going to fall. This happened with the acid rain program back in the American Electric Power predicted that it was going to destroy the economy of the Midwest. Like the lights are going to go out, the sky is going to fall.Every time and we never learn. We never learn from those previous examples. It's crazy, right?And so the actual costs of complying with the acid rain program and reducing sulfur dioxide ended up being, I think, around a 10th of what industry had estimated. Sulfur scrubbers are now widely used. The program has been a great success. It is this great example of how we can set pollution standards and then innovate to meet them cost effectively and quicker than anyone expects. We do it over and over again.David RobertsOver and over again.Lissa LynchAnd we can do it in this context.David RobertsRight? One more thing. Before we get to what's available for the new standards, we should mention I should mention that when the clean power plant got shut down, the legal obligation to pass regulations on existing power plants then passed to the Trump administration, which did that sort of passed a ... what was it called? The clean America ...Lissa LynchThe Affordable, Clean Energy Plan.David RobertsYes, Affordable Clean Energy, the ACE Plan, which several analyses showed would on net have raised emissions in the power plant sector. So those got shut down in court, too. They were just completely a joke. Ludicrous so that's all the history. So here we are Biden's EPA has got to regulate existing power plants and new power plants. And it can't take this so called outside the fence line holistic approach that the clean power plant took. So it's got to set standards based on what you can do at the individual power plant level inside the fence line, as they say.So what are the options? Actually, I'm talking way too much, but let me get one more thing out of the way and then I'll let you talk. But one of the things that faced the reason I just want people to understand this too, the reason Obama took this approach, the reason Obama's EPA took this outside the fence line holistic approach, is that if you're just restricting yourself to the individual power plant, you're stuck with either marginal improvements, right? You get the boiler to work more efficiently, you tighten up efficiency, and you can sort of marginally 3% to 5%, reduce emissions.Or on the other side, there's carbon capture and sequestration, which especially ten years ago when Obama's EPA was contemplating it, was not very well tested, not very well proven, super expensive. So you either had sort of like a fly swatter or a nuke when it comes to the individual power plant, which is why they went with the holistic approach. So now the holistic approach is off the table. We're back to the fly swatter or nuke problem. So just tell us sort of like, what are the available options here?Lissa LynchYeah, so you kind of covered the two ends of the range, right? On one end, the very low ambition end, you can make minor improvements to the operating efficiency of the plant, the way the plant operates. That was the basis for the standards that the Trump administration issued. And as you noted, improving the efficiency of the plant makes it run better and it can be called upon to run more and therefore can end up increasing its overall emissions. That sort of rebound effect. That's a possibility. You can still reduce emissions through operating efficiency improvements. And I think there's more options that could achieve greater reductions than the ones that the Trump administration included in their rule.But still, we're talking the very low-end, single percentage reductions in the middle, there's this option of cofiring with a lower carbon fuel. So if you're talking about coal plants, you can co-fire that coal plant partially with gas. In a gas plant, you could co-fire partially with hydrogen and you're going to bring the emissions rate of the plant down somewhat. In some of our analysis, we've estimated that a 40% cofiring coal with gas. So cofiring a coal plant with 40% gas gets you about a 20% emission reduction. So it's not nothing, but it also involves additional fossil infrastructure to get gas to a coal plant or additional infrastructure to get hydrogen to a gas plant.And on top of several other issues with hydrogen that we can talk about a little later.David RobertsWell, a legal question, I guess all of this in some respect is arbitrary, but where is the line between forcing fuel-switching, which I think Supreme Court said was out of bounds, and too far, versus a rule that requires cofiring, which is like kind of like halfway to fuel switching? Is there a legal distinction there between those two?Lissa LynchThere's absolutely precedent for requiring cleaner fuels or fuel processes. What the Supreme Court mentioned, at least in dicta, was we don't want to see standards that would force a plant to stop existing. And so essentially, if EPA were to base the standard on total conversion from coal to gas, which some coal plants have undertaken with cheap gas prices, that I think, based on our reading of the decision anyway, would probably be too far. So full conversion probably off the table along with generation shifting. But partial cofiring is actually one of the technologies that the Obama administration considered for their Clean Power Plan, as was carbon capture.And as you noted, the approach that they took in the Clean Power Plan, they selected because it was the most cost effective. So they ruled out carbon capture and cofiring, not because they weren't adequately demonstrated or available, they were just more expensive than the approach that EPA ended up going with.David RobertsBut now we're forced back basically to that more expensive approach.Lissa LynchRight, as I mentioned before, but want to keep reiterating, this is all about setting the level of the standard, finding it's a math problem. EPA looks at the options, and so the options as we see them are efficiency improvements, getting very little cofiring, getting somewhere in the middle, or carbon capture and storage, getting the most amount of emission reductions. They look out at that and they select the best system. Then they apply it to the plant and essentially do a math problem and come out with a number, a numerical limit for the amount of CO2 emission reductions that the plants need to achieve.Then they hand the baton off to the states for existing sources and to the companies for new sources. So this is not a requirement to install that specific technology. It's a way to derive the level of the standard and then pass that off to the states and the companies to comply with.David RobertsRight. EPA sets the standard and then says to states and companies, do what you want.Lissa LynchRight, as long as you can meet this number. Be creative, innovate.David RobertsThe central question is what upon what technology is the number going to be based on exactly? This low-end, this something in the middle, and this high-end, which is carbon capture and sequestration. So here I want to talk about what the sort of arguments are around this. It says in the text of the Clean Air Act that EPA should set the standard based on the best available system. That has to be adequately demonstrated so I just want to dig in a little bit on the technical legal language here. Like what exactly or what have courts interpreted that language to mean exactly?What is required to be adequately demonstrated? A single demonstration plant somewhere? like some good charts and graphs in a lab? Or do you have to be commercial, or does price and, you know, financial viability come into that? Like, what is EPA thinking about when it thinks about what is adequately demonstrated or best?Lissa LynchYes. Okay, so I'm a Clean Air Act lawyer. This is my favorite part. I love the Clean Air Act, and I love to talk about the language of the statute because that's actually what we're really fighting over here. EPA is tasked with establishing the standard of performance, and so that definition is in the statute. They have to determine the degree of emission limitation that can be achieved through the application of the best system of emission reduction that is adequately demonstrated considering cost, energy factors and essentially other factors. And so there's this really defined set of criteria that EPA needs to go through as they're determining what's the best system of emission reduction.So we've been talking about adequately demonstrated that it can't be a made up technology, but it also doesn't have to be widely used by everyone. Already, the Clean Air Act is technology forcing it's forward looking.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchIt requires the regulated source to reduce its emissions commensurate with the best control systems that are available, not the ones that are already sort of out there in use, that plants are choosing to use of their own accord. So again, in a lot of ways, this is analogous to so SO2 scrubbers which were not in widely used, they were not widely produced in the 90s, and there were all these doom and gloom predictions of how much it's going to cost.We're not going to be able to do this. So right now, there's no limit at all on CO2 emissions from power plants. There's been no reason to innovate on carbon capture for power plants, and there is not a ton of projects out there in the world, but there are plenty to serve as an adequate demonstration for purposes of the Clean Air Act. There's essentially three parts here of carbon capture. There's capture, there's transport, and there's storage. And each part of that process is well established and has been in use for decades, especially the capture part. We've been capturing carbon for decades.And so there's plenty of demonstration in both pilot projects and at commercial scale to be applied in the power sector. It doesn't have to be something that's already widely out there.David RobertsSo it's sort of a holistic consideration. And EPA is sort of attempting to apply something like wisdom here. There's a balance of considerations. And I assume, and tell me if I'm wrong, that the usual suspects are arguing to EPA that that would be too strict, that a standard based on CCS would be too strict. And presumably the way they're making that argument is by saying CCS is not the best or adequately demonstrated. So what is their argument? Have you read, like, their briefs, or do they have a specific argument here?Lissa LynchThey do, and they're familiar. It's the same set of arguments that we've seen over and over. It's too costly, we can't do it yet. We're getting there. Just let us do this at our own pace. One of the concerning things is the argument that we need gas now, and we're okay with standards that are based on something we might do in the future. So set the standards only at a level that were ready for CCS, that were ready for hydrogen sometime in the future.David RobertsCCS ready.Lissa LynchCCS ready. Hydrogen ready.David RobertsI love that phrase.Lissa LynchIt's just kicking the can down the road.David RobertsLike your own David Hawkins once said, it's like saying, my driveway is Ferrari ready.Lissa LynchExactly. And I think what's at the heart of this industry estimates that CCS can achieve 90% capture and emissions data from the projects that have been built back that up. That is not to say that EPA needs to go ahead and require a 90% emission reduction from every single coal and gas plant in the country. Right. We think it makes the most sense for EPA to draw some distinctions based on the role that the plants perform on the grid. Right. So there's a big difference between ...David RobertsOh, really?Lissa LynchYes, there's a big difference between plants that are used for baseload power that are running constantly all the time, and those that are used intermittently for reliability as backup power during times of high demand.There does not need to be the exact identical standards on those two types of plants. So plants that are running full time are emitting the most, and they should be required to reduce their emissions to the greatest degree. So we think it makes sense to have a 90% capture based standard for plants that are going to serve as baseload, that are going to run all the time. And it's the most cost effective for those types of plants to install CCS, especially when you consider the tax credit. Plants that are operating intermittently as backup are already emitting less pollution simply by running less.And those plants can face a less stringent standard, stay on the grid as backup, and serve that really important reliability function without being required to install CCS, they can meet a lesser standard.David RobertsIs there a distinction between those two kinds of plants that is clean enough and clear enough to set legal limits around them because there are some fuzzy edge cases? And then, number two, are we sure that EPA like that's within EPA? Sort of. That's not major for EPA to be thinking to be sort of specifying which standards applied based on function based on operations.Lissa LynchYes. So this is the kind of detailed analytical and technical decision making that is well within the expert agency's wheelhouse. This is exactly the type of thing that the experts at the agency are normally tasked by the statute to do. They're the ones who run the numbers and figure out what's most appropriate for the specific type of plant that they're regulating. And in fact, the existing standards for new sources do include these sorts of subcategorization based on the use type of the plant. So this is not something complex and mysterious. This is based on true and visible distinctions between types of plants based on the way that they're used.And I think it really is yet another layer of the sort of flexibility that EPA can and should build into this program. Again, none of this is a particular mandate. And so the states and the companies then have that additional choice. Well, they can run a plant full steam and install controls, or they can run intermittently, keep that plant online and face a lesser limit, or they can retire it and make their own choices about what to replace it with. This is providing more and more levels of choices to the regulated industry to comply in the way that makes sense for them.David RobertsYeah. And something you mentioned in passing, I want to just highlight and put a pin in here, which is that a big argument here on your side is CCS is now being showered with subsidies. Like there are huge subsidies coming down from the Inflation Reduction Act for captured hydrogen, enough to make them economic in some cases or certainly a lot closer. So these are synergistic. I'm saying like the Biden administration's legislation is bolstering the case for these tighter standards because CCS is not just on its own now. Now it's explicitly being helped and shaped and stood up by government grants.Lissa LynchThat's right. And at the same time, the Inflation Reduction Act also contains a ton of money for renewables. And so that level of investment across these types of technologies really changes the overall cost of the regulations. And that's one of the things that EPA has to consider, is the overall cost of compliance to the system. And so again, when these standards are in place and states and companies are looking out across their fleet and saying, oh, what should we do? All of those incentives are going to come into that consideration for them. And it makes renewables really cheap to replace your older dirtier generation with.David RobertsI got one more question about the standard setting before I want to get into the politics a little bit, but some energy heads out there may be familiar with a company called NET Power, which has come up with a new, I guess it's a couple of years old now. They've built one demonstration plan, a new technology that without getting into the technological details, it's really fascinating. I might do a whole pod on it, but basically it burns natural gas. Emits no particulate pollution at all and captures 100% of the CO2 emissions as a purified stream of CO2.So you have in NET Power a natural gas power plant with zero particulate emissions and 100% carbon capture. They've built one, it's running and working. So has there been any talk about using that as a standard? Because that would be 100% carbon reduction. Has NET Power's tech come up in these discussions?Lissa LynchYeah, for sure. I mean, it's very cool, right? It was included, the EPA put out a white paper last year asking for input, sort of preregulatory input on the technologies that are available to reduce emissions, specifically from gas plants. And they took comment on the NET Power approach, which I cannot remember the name of. Allam something.David RobertsAllam Cycle, I think is right. I was trying to think of that.Lissa LynchAnd it is really cool and innovative and I hope that that is a direction that we're going to see any remaining fossil generation go in. And I think we may see that in the proposal. Again, all of what I'm talking about here is we have not seen a proposal from EPA. This is sort of NRDC's perspective on what is possible, justifiable achievable and legally defensible in court. And this is what we've been advocating for before the agency, and then we'll have to see what they come up with. We're expecting a proposal relatively soon, probably within a month or so.David RobertsWhat's really interesting to me about this, just from a political perspective, is it's a sort of weird inversion here of the typical roles. So you've got the power sector, which has been touting CCS for years, to sort of like defend the ongoing existence of fossil power plants. They sort of wave their hands at CCS and say, no, we can go clean too. So they've got Joe Manchin out up there saying, I want to go clean, but I want to do it with fossil. I literally think they've convinced him that they can eliminate their carbon emissions. And traditionally you've had sort of greens and climate people saying that's big and overly complicated and overly expensive and stupid and nobody's ever really going to do it and it's just going to make more sense to switch to clean generation.And so now we've got this odd political inversion where the power companies are saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, CCS is not really ready. We didn't mean "ready ready," we meant just over the horizon is what we meant. That's where they like it. They like CCS just over the horizon. And all of a sudden this is like calling their bluff. Like, oh, you've been talking about this for decades. Well, how about you use it? And then on the green side, on the climate side, you have a similar inversion where now greens and green groups like yours are arguing like CCS.Oh, it's great. Yeah, it's right there, it's ready to go, absolutely ready to serve. As the basis for a standard. It's just odd and funny and I just wonder if you have any comment on the politics of trying to herd the cats in the climate community around this message of like CCS is ready and viable, which I don't think comes naturally to a lot of factions, let's say, within the climate community.Lissa LynchWell, that's well phrased. We're walking a fine line. I think our vision for the power sector and the power industry is one of net zero. And in order to get to net zero, that means a heck of a lot of renewables and a heck of a lot less fossil.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchFor the purposes of setting pollution limits, we need a technological basis and by far and away CCS is the most effective of the options that we've got.David RobertsThat the Supreme Court left us.Lissa LynchExactly. And I think it is very important to have limits on the CO2 emissions from power plants. I think that is sort of the baseline, most important thing from our point of view.David RobertsRight, well, lots of, I mean, reports, we should just say lots of reports have been done saying the legislative progress is great, but it's not enough to reach Biden's stated goal. And to reach Biden's stated goal, you need a whole of administration approach, including these standards.Lissa LynchExactly. And just to put some actual numbers on that, if we want to meet our international and domestic greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for 2030, we need to get our power sector emissions down by 80% from the 2005 sort of peak emissions. We're already about a third of a reduction, 33% -ish reduction since 2005. Our analysis and RDCs of the Inflation Reduction Act puts us now on track to cut our power sector emissions by about 65% by 2030. So that is massive and also not enough.David RobertsRight.Lissa LynchAnd our estimate there is somewhere in the middle there's a really wide range of modeling of the Inflation Reduction Act and a lot of work is going to need to be done in order to get those emission reductions that we're sort of showing in that modeling. It's not a foregone conclusion.David RobertsYeah, one of the wildest things going on right now is just the incredible range of projections about what the IRA will do. Right. Like the sort of government came up with, oh, that it's going to spend $370 on these tax credits and then Credit Suisse is like, actually it's more like a trillion. And then I think there was another one last week, it was like actually it's more like a trillion five. So the range of amounts of money that could come out of this bill are just huge. It's so opaque.Lissa LynchIt is. And a lot still remains to be written in all the guidance for these tax credits. But that sort of uncertainty aside, I think the Inflation Reduction Act is going to accelerate a bunch of clean energy and it's going to get us a bunch of emission reductions in the power sector. And at least based on our analysis, that's not quite enough. And we absolutely are going to need limits on the CO2 emissions in addition to investments in clean energy.David RobertsSo maybe the way to summarize is just to say endorsing CCS as the basis of a performance standard is different than endorsing CCS, full stop.Lissa LynchYeah, well put. And I think what we see in the modeling reflects what I've been saying about the decision making that comes once EPA sets the standard. So when we model standards that are based on CCS and we've included the Inflation Reduction Act in the baseline, we overall get to around between 70% and 77% CO2 emission reduction by 2030. And what we're seeing in the actual generation results, there is some CCS deployment and also a ton of clean energy.David RobertsThis is my next question, actually, and you're here answering it before I even ask it, but I just wanted to ask, as a matter of curiosity, has someone modeled what would happen if EPA sets the standards where you are endorsing and what does the modeling say about the decisions power companies are going to make? Like how many fossil fuel plants will shut down versus installing CCS? I don't know if there's like an easy answer to that.Lissa LynchWell, so we have done lots of modeling and we've been doing it for quite a while because even before this Supreme Court decision last summer, we were anticipating that EPA was going to be constrained and in this sort of inside the fence line way. And so we've really been looking for ways to get the most ambition and the most emission reductions out of these sort of source specific basis for the standards. That range that I gave you is based on CCS and partial CCS runs. So 70% to 77% overall emission reductions depending how much you crank the dial on the ambition.But still with some of those sort of flexibilities that I talked about in terms of the type of use of the plant and what we see in those runs is renewables and energy storage capacity tripling from now to 2030 and quadrupling by 2035. And I think that is in large part based on these new Inflation Reduction Act tax credits being just so much more cost effective. And we still do see some retrofits with carbon capture and storage and some new builds of gas with carbon capture, but not a massive amount. And so there is some uptake of the technology and there's also some reinvestment in clean energy and that kind of tracks with what you would expect, right?And that kind of goes back to that was essentially what EPA was counting on and basing their standards off of in the Clean Power Plan and that's why they did it that way. I think we can do it this way. And that carbon capture and storage based best system of emission reduction can be shown to be available to the plants that could use it. And not all plants are going to make that choice. It's going to be up to the states and the companies to look at their options and choose whether they want to keep that plant online, and that should work.David RobertsSo NRDC is recommending a CCS based standard for both existing-source regs and new-source regs. Is there any difference between those two that's worth sort of pulling out here?Lissa LynchYeah, so I think industry estimates that CCS can achieve 90% capture. And so given that that technology exists, we think it should be used to set the standard for at least the plants that are operating at full bore, both new and existing. When you're building a new plant, you have much greater options in terms of where you're sighting it, how you're building it. You should be required to use the latest and greatest technology on a brand new plant. So that's pretty straightforward for existing plants because they're all over the place. We rely on them already for power.There needs to be more flexibility, there needs to be more of a phase-in sort of glide path to compliance and some flexibility for how you're going to comply and some exemptions for those plants that are going to commit to retire. You don't want to make them retrofit right before they're expected to retire, you want to just let them plan to retire at the natural end-of-life of the plant. And so giving that flexibility on the existing source side is going to be really important and has long been part of the way that the section 111 standard setting has worked to differentiate between new and existing plants.David RobertsSo, CCS based standard in both cases, but maybe more flexibility and implementation for the existing plants.Lissa LynchExactly.David RobertsIf EPA does use CCS or hydrogen, something like that, as the basis for its performance standard, does it have any say at all in the details of sort of how CCS or hydrogen are used or measured? Because Volts listeners just got an hour and a half earful of discussion of the clean Hydrogen Tax Credits last week, and the details are many, and they make a big gifference in how clean hydrogen is used, how it's measured sort of how its carbon intensity is assessed, how much end users are allowed to claim reductions from using it, et cetera, et cetera. Does EPA get into any of that? Or is this purely just, we're using this tech as a way to set the numerical standard, but the details of how a power plant might implement this is somebody else's problem.Lissa LynchSo they absolutely have some authority over how it gets used to comply with this standard. So for purposes of standard setting, they're looking kind of broadly at what the technology is capable of achieving, how it's been used in the past, how it could apply to power plants that exist now in terms of compliance, though, they've got the authority over CO2 essentially in this rulemaking. And so if a plant is going to demonstrate compliance using carbon capture and storage or hydrogen, they can absolutely include the types of rigorous monitoring and verification requirements they would need to see in order for a plant to be demonstrating compliance using one of these technologies.David RobertsRight? So they can get into saying, here's what does and doesn't qualify as full CCS like measured every so often, or this kind of geographical storage. They can't get into that?Lissa LynchI absolutely think so. I think they have authority to say you need to have rigorous monitoring and verification from the point of capture to the point of sequestration. And that needs to be part of your demonstration of compliance for using carbon capture. For hydrogen ... It's a little trickier.David RobertsI'm very aware at the moment.Lissa LynchTo the extent that there is going to be a pathway for hydrogen to be used for compliance, it's got to take into account where that hydrogen comes from, how it's made in order to avoid net emissions increases. And I think they absolutely have that authority. Given that the purpose of this is for the best system of emission reduction, they've got to ensure that it is truly reducing emissions.David RobertsMaybe they can just borrow whatever treasury comes up with for the hydrogen.Lissa LynchAssuming it's good.David RobertsYes, true. If EPA doesn't go with CCS, doesn't go with the high end here, what do you think it will do? Will it fall back to something medium, something in the fuel blending sort of range? And just more broadly, do we have any sense at all of what EPA is thinking or which direction it's going or what to expect?Lissa LynchI think in terms of publicly facing tea leaves, what we've got to look at really is that white paper from last year where they had laid out the options and said, hey, give us some comments on what you think of these options for reducing CO2 emissions from combustion turbines. From everything that we have seen from this administration, we are hoping that they're going to be ambitious. They know that this is a critical moment. They know that this is an important wedge of emissions, that the power sector is still a really significant percentage of our emissions, roughly a quarter, and that we need standards on those CO2 emissions and they need to be strong.And it's not going to be worth all this work, honestly, if they don't make them strong. And so that has been our message to the administration, is, look, if you're going to go through the trouble of doing this all over again, let's make it worth it.David RobertsIs Manchin he's like the monster under my bed at this point. Is there some way Manchin could burst out of the closet and screw this up somehow? Or is he ...Lissa LynchI hesitate to even speculate.David RobertsCan I just not think about him in this respect, or does he have some way that he could theoretically muck this up, or is this something that's finally just sort of beyond his reach?Lissa LynchI think for now, the ball is in EPA's court to come out with a proposal and to take public comments and to consider them. And so for right now, this is an EPA project. Once it's finalized, it will presumably be subject to a Congressional Review Act resolution, and it will depend on who is in charge as to what happens there. And so that's when Congress gets to have its veto opportunity over regulations, which is unfortunate, but it is the world we're living in.David RobertsAnd does that just require a majority or a supermajority?Lissa LynchI believe it's just a majority, but it can be blocked by the President.David RobertsRight. And by the time there's a new president, it'll be too late. We're coming in under the deadline that the Congressional Review Act, if it's going to happen at all, would happen under Biden and thus would be vetoed. So that's not really ...Lissa LynchAnd so that takes place at the final rule. So we're only at the proposal stage. We've got a long way to go.David RobertsIs it going to get done under the Congressional Review Act just to just explain to listeners? Congressional Review Act says basically Congress can undo or veto a regulation basically within a certain window of it being finalized which is 60 ...Lissa Lynch60 working days, which does not equal the calendar days.David RobertsRight. So what you want to do is get your regulations on the books more than 60 working days prior to the next presidential election.Lissa LynchExactly.David RobertsJust so you're sure your guys in charge, if it happens.Lissa LynchThe date that we are looking at is next April, roughly a year from now, for all of these regulations. Right. Like it's not just ...David RobertsThere's a lot these are not the only ones. There's a lot of there's a big backlog.Lissa LynchIt is. And we are seeing the use of the Congressional Review Act right now as we speak in this Congress with attempts to invalidate the rules that the administration has recently finalized. It is a terrible tool. It is not a good thing.David RobertsIt's a Newt Gingrich special, isn't it? Am I right about the history? Of course, like so many malignant things in our government treat.Lissa LynchBut it is the world we're living in, and I think the administration is aware of the timeline that's facing them next year.David RobertsInteresting. So you think a proposed rule is going to show up in the next month or two?Lissa LynchYeah, we're expecting a proposed rule maybe by the end of April. And then when ... you know what happens, that gets published in the Federal Register. There's an opportunity for public comment. There's public hearings. And so there will be sort of a flurry of activity as everybody gets their comments in, and then the agency has to review those comments and address them in the final rule. That's part of the sort of Administrative Law 101. And then they have to issue the final rule and demonstrate yeah, we heard all your comments, and this is why we made the decisions that we made.David RobertsAnd that's when the lawsuits kick off.Lissa LynchAnd that's when the lawsuits start. Exactly. We do it all over again. It's the circle of life.David RobertsYes. And what do you think of the chances that this Supreme Court ends up hearing a case on this again? Do you think the conservatives can mount a legal case plausible enough to get it back into the Supreme Court?Lissa LynchI would never speculate about what this Supreme Court will do, because who knows, right? Our job is to make this thing as airtight as possible. And Chief Justice Roberts gave us some guidelines and a roadmap in the West Virginia decision. He told us what he's looking for, and it's this sort of traditional looking approach to pollution control. And so that's what we're operating under. And we are urging EPA to follow those guidelines and do the most that they can within those constraints, and we'll be there to defend it with them if it comes down to that.David RobertsAll right, awesome. Lissa Lynch of NRDC, thank you for coming and forecasting and explaining all this with us. Maybe we'll talk again in that distant future day when these things are actually on the books and the lawsuits have started. We'll talk again.Lissa LynchThank you so much for having me.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

The University of Richmond chapter of the Federalist Society hosted this panel discussion on "The Major Questions Doctrine, Chevron Deference & the Future of the Regulatory State" on Tuesday, March 21, 2023.Featuring:- Prof. Joel B. Eisen, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law- Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School- Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that the major questions doctrine requires courts to, “expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.” Some argue that the Court's opinion in the case leaves doubt as to how the doctrine will be […]

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that the major questions doctrine requires courts to, “expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.” Some argue that the Court's opinion in the case leaves doubt as to how the doctrine will be applied in future cases and how it will impact future regulatory policy. In the past, Executive branch agencies have invoked Title IX to introduce many new rules and regulations. Some of these rules and regulations have faced significant opposition from inside and outside of government. Do elements of modern Title IX administration constitute a major question that Congress is best suited to consider? If so, how will this impact the future administration of Title IX regulations?Join us as Jennifer Braceras and Professor Daniel Farber discuss the future of Title IX in the wake of West Virginia v. EPA.Featuring:Jennifer Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law CenterProfessor Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, Berkeley Law[Moderator] Farnaz Farkish Thompson, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP

The subject today is the major questions doctrine, which has come up recently in the context of student loans – but has significance independent of where you stand on the question of loan forgiveness.Let's take a deeper look at … the major questions-doctrine. Which kind of sounds like an army officer with a hyphenated last name.Thanks so much for listening to Minimum Competence. If you have any questions or story suggestions, find us on Mastodon on the esq.social instance. We also have a link aggregator in the fediverse, at links.esq.social, where some of our stories will be sourced from so feel free to sign up and submit there.We are especially interested in legal happenings from our listeners outside the United States. If you have an interesting case or story, consider recording a 30 second to 2 minute clip on your phone and sending it in. We'd love to run it. Contact information is in the show notes. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Oral arguments in the cases challenging President Biden's student loan cancellation plan dominated the news this week while other interesting SCOTUS developments flew under the radar. Zack discusses the opinions you may have missed, while GianCarlo does a deep dive into those oral arguments. With administrative law front-and-center this week, GianCarlo interviews an expert on the subject, Professor Chad Squitieri of the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America. The two discuss the Major Questions Doctrine and Catholic University's Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. Last up, Zack does a good job stumping GianCarlo with trivia about the prior careers of famous Justices.Here is a link to Professor Squitieri's article, Major Problems with Major Questions. And here is a link to Zack's article about New York v. New Jersey. Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Amid Rising U.S./ China Tensions, the House Holds a Hearing of Its New Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party | As of Today 42 Million Americans Will Have Food Stamp Benefits Cut Down to $6 Per Person Per Day | The Latest Power Grab by Our Far-Right Supreme Court Using Its "Major Questions Doctrine." backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

In today's episode we have state solicitors generals and the supreme court, an impending environmental disaster at the Great Salt Lake, and the major questions doctrine may spell doom for Biden's student loan relief plan.State Solicitors General to Have Big Week at US Supreme Court - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/state-solicitors-general-to-have-big-week-at-us-supreme-courtTime Is Running Out for Lawmakers to Save the Great Salt Lake - https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/time-is-running-out-for-lawmakers-to-save-the-great-salt-lakeU.S. Supreme Court's ‘major questions' test may doom Biden student debt plan - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-courts-major-questions-test-may-doom-biden-student-debt-plan-2023-02-23/Thanks so much for listening to Minimum Competence. If you have any questions or story suggestions, find us on Mastodon on the esq.social instance. We also have a link aggregator in the fediverse, at links.esq.social, where some of our stories will be sourced from so feel free to sign up and submit there.We are especially interested in legal happenings from our listeners outside the United States. If you have an interesting case or story, consider recording a 30 second to 2 minute clip on your phone and sending it in. We'd love to run it. Contact information is in the show notes. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Commitment Matters, Mary speaks with Steve Gottheim, General Counsel for ALTA. You can contact Steve via email.During their conversation, Steve or Mary mentioned: Read up on the latest happenings in Congress here.The Major Questions Doctrine is described as the intention of clear congressional authority that Congress needs to carry when putting on a regulation that has significant economic or political impacts.An example of Major Questions Doctrine was West Virginia v. EPA and the Clean Power Plan. Read more about the case here.Steve specifically mentions the Administrative Procedures Act.This article offers a breakdown to understand more of the Dodd Frank Act, what it's comprised of and its implications. Mary and Steve discuss the authority behind TRID and RESPA regulation.Steve outlines Chevron deference and explains how it's connected to Major Questions Doctrine in case discussions. Here is an outline of Chevon U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the case in which the term Chevron deference comes from. Steve relates these concepts from the title and real estate perspective through Title X (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) and Title XIV (Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act) of Dodd Frank.Read about the Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd.(CFSA), CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) case here. Steve explains how APA challenges work.Amicus briefs are usually filed in appellate courts by businesses, government entities and other associations toward a specific case to show the impact a case may have on people outside the parties involved. Take a look at some of the most recent examples of amicus briefs.You can now reach the Commitment Matters Podcast via phone! Got a topic or guest idea you want featured? Leave us a voice message at 214.377.1807 or email us at podcasts@ramquest.com.Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review this podcast on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit RamQuest.com/podcast to download the latest episode.Lastly, we love to see when and how you're listening. Share our posts, or create your own and tag them: #CommitmentMattersPodcast

Supreme Court actions during the 2021-2022 term - opinions, grants and denials of petitions for certiorari, and motions docket orders - captured the attention of the legal community. Emblematic of the trend in judicial analysis was West Virginia v. EPA in which, notwithstanding that every brief cited Chevron for or against deference to the agency’s action, the Court’s opinion never mentioned it. Instead, the Court invoked the major questions doctrine to conclude that the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations had exceeded the authority Congress had granted it in the Clean Air Act. In other decisions as well, the Court applied new degrees of weight to a variety of methodologies, doctrines, and canonical tools in its interpretations of statutes and the authority they grant the agencies assigned to implement them.This panel will explore what this new trend in judicial analysis means for future challenges to agency actions. Is the SEC’s focus on ESG, for example, within the confines of its statutory mandate? Can ERISA fiduciaries favor ESG concerns over earnings and value considerations? Is DOJ acting within its authority when it requires the target seeking to settle an enforcement action to pay, not a statutorily prescribed fine to the Federal Treasury, but non-parties, unrelated to the enforcement action? Is the Department of Education authorized to forgive student loans? Can the Department of Defense discharge military personnel for refusing a COVID vaccine? These and other questions are likely to be the subject of lively discussion by this panel of experts.Featuring:Mr. Ian Gershengorn, Partner, Jenner & Block; Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law & Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of JusticeProf. Tom Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Former Deputy Solicitor General Mr. Yaakov (Jacob) M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

This episode is from the third panel of the Gray Center's October 14 conference, “The Administration of Antitrust: The FTC and the Rule of Law.” It features the following experts: Jeffrey S. Lubbers, Professor of Practice in Administrative Law, Washington College of Law, American University Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor, Columbia Law School The Honorable Eugene Scalia, Partner... Source

This episode is from the third panel of the Gray Center’s October 14 conference, “The Administration of Antitrust: The FTC and the Rule of Law.” It features the following experts: Jeffrey S. Lubbers, Professor of Practice in Administrative Law, Washington College of Law, American University Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor, Columbia Law School The Honorable Eugene Scalia, Partner... Source

On this episode of the Administrative Law Review's A Hard Look, tune in to listen to our Senior Technology Editor, Alexander Naum, and our Technology Editor, Eva Bogdewic speak with Environmental Law expert, William Snape, III. In this episode, we review the Supreme Court's ruling in WV v. EPA and its implications on climate policy, and the broader implications to Administrative Law as it relates to Chevron Deference and the Major Questions Doctrine. If you have any questions about this episode, the guest, or the podcast, or if you would like to propose a topic or a guest, please email Alexander Naum at ALR-Sr-Tech-Editor@wcl.american.edu.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA ruled that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to require a systematic shift to cleaner sources of electricity generation. Many fear this decision will be devastating to the agency's and the executive branch's ability to move the U.S. away from carbon-intensive energy sources and toward cleaner resources to address climate change in the accelerated timeline necessary to avoid its worst impacts. So, in this episode, Chad Reed sits down with Max Rodriguez, an attorney with Pollock Cohen and the primary author of an amicus curiae brief on behalf of 192 Members of Congress supporting the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. Max discusses in depth the history and justiciability of the case, the major questions doctrine underpinning it, the potentially far-reaching implications of the decision and the related non-delegation doctrine for federal environmental regulations going forward, and much more.Importantly, the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed after this episode was recorded, amends the Clean Air Act to add several specific new programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide funding to the states to develop their own plans. Taken together, these provisions go a long way towards addressing the view of the 6-3 majority in West Virginia v. EPA that Congress has not been clear enough regarding the EPA's authority to tackle climate change. However, the new law may still fall short of granting EPA the authority to revive the generation-shifting approach struck down by the Court in this case. Links:West Virginia v. Environmental Protection AgencyBrief of 192 Members of Congress as Amici Curiae in Support of RespondentsArticle: The Inflation Reduction Act doesn't get around the Supreme Court's climate ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, but it does strengthen EPA's future abilities (The Conversation, August 24, 2022)Episode recorded: August 8, 2022

Join Saladin Ambar for a discussion with SCOTUSblog Editor James Romoser exploring recent SCOTUS decisions regarding abortion and climate change. Romoser also addresses questions such as: Who is the swing justice on the current bench? What in the world is the "Major Questions Doctrine?" Are there constitutional checks on Supreme Court Justices? Tune in to learn more.

On June 30th, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), limiting the EPAs ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond its direct impact on climate policy, the case significantly impacts administrative power by supercharging a new legal regime - the “major questions doctrine.” Environmental law and administrative law expert, Professor Lisa Heinzerling (Georgetown Law Center) unpacks the Court's decision in WV v. EPA and explains the broad powers of the judicial doctrine.Prof. Heinzerling goes on to explain how major questions may prove to be the death knell for a prior test known as “Chevron deference.” Where Chevron assured judicial restraint toward federal policy, major questions now threatens to stymie agency action on some of the most critical and contentious issues of the moment, from climate change policy and far beyond.

To unlock exclusive content, visit: https://politicology.com/plus Lanae Erickson (Senior Vice President for Social Policy, Education & Politics at Third Way) joins host Ron Steslow to discuss President Biden's executive order canceling student loans  (02:07) Biden's student loan cancellation plan  (12:29) How canceling student loans could impact inflation (17:20) What this could mean for future tuition hikes (26:10) How it could impact non-college educated voters  (30:23) The legal problems with canceling student loans (39:55) The Major Questions Doctrine (43:58) The use of emergency powers in non-emergent situations (48:53) The underlying problems in higher education and what lawmakers can do to solve these problems You should read Lanae's Medium Piece: https://bit.ly/3cp6jg0 Follow Lanae and Ron on Twitter: https://twitter.com/LanaeErickson https://twitter.com/RonSteslow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the historic decision of West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act doesn't authorize EPA to force America's electricity sector to switch to renewable sources. The Court invalidated the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which would have limited the total allowable greenhouse gas emissions of each state's utility sector under the banner of “performance standards” for power plants. That was the regulatory strategy the EPA had pursued for cutting emissions from electricity generation. Consequently, the decision closes the window on the most viable regulatory route for sweeping climate action by federal agencies without a clear congressional mandate, while raising the bar still higher for options such as NAAQS for greenhouse gases.The decision's linchpin was the Court's holding that the Obama Administration's novel interpretation of a 50-year old statutory provision could not be used to support the broad new powers that EPA had claimed for itself in the Clean Power Plan. Under the court's “major question doctrine,” Congress must speak clearly to delegate “decisions of vast economic and political significance” to an agency. Together with Justice Neil Gorsuch, who in concurrence further elaborated on his view of non-delegation, the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts signaled that the Court is likely to reject major regulatory innovations by federal agencies that are not based on clear statutory authority.Featuring:Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment, University of California, BerkeleyAdam Gustafson, Senior Counsel for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, BoeingMario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute[Moderator] James Coleman, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On June 30th, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), limiting the EPAs ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond its direct impact on climate policy, the case significantly impacts administrative power by supercharging a new legal regime - the “major questions doctrine.” Environmental law and administrative law expert, Professor Lisa Heinzerling (Georgetown Law Center) unpacks the Court's decision in WV v. EPA and explains the broad powers of the judicial doctrine.Prof. Heinzerling goes on to explain how major questions may prove to be the death knell for a prior test known as “Chevron deference.” Where Chevron assured judicial restraint toward federal policy, major questions now threatens to stymie agency action on some of the most critical and contentious issues of the moment, from climate change policy and far beyond.

  Join us for Big Tent Climate Talks, CCL's engaging, quarterly conversation that spotlights leaders in the climate community outside of CCL doing important work in building coalitions around effective climate solutions. At CCL, we know solving climate change requires a variety of policies and perspectives. That's why we do this work under a big tent that includes folks from the right, the left, and every spot in between. In our Big Tent Climate Talks, we'll talk to a wide variety of climate leaders outside of CCL to learn more about how we can all work better together. Our July event features a conversation with Robert Glicksman, GWU Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law and Kyle Kammien, Manager, Stakeholder Engagement and Government Affairs on the Supreme Court's recent decision on West Virginia v. EPA.    Skip ahead to the following section(s): (0:00) Intro & Agenda (3:31) Professor Glicksman's Background (6:40) West Virginia v EPA Summary  (10:59) Major Questions Doctrine (24:55) What Can The Biden Administration Do? (30:55) Q&A From Audience

On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 opinion that Congress did not give the EPA authority to set greenhouse gas emissions standards for existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Practice Group member Donald K. Shandy returns to Briefly Legal to discuss the Court's ruling and its application of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit EPA's regulatory authority. He also discusses what the ruling means for administrative agency power more broadly, and the scenarios in which EPA can still regulate emissions under other sections of the CAA. About Donald K. Shandy Additional Resources: West Virginia vs. EPA: An Environmental Regulations Case with Broad Implications for Agency PowerConnect with Crowe & Dunlevy: Website | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn

After the recent Supreme Court ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency, Democrats appear poised to respond with a budget reconciliation plan that could impact health care, clean energy, and corporate taxes.-----Transcript-----Welcome to the Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Head of Public Policy Research and Municipal Strategy for Morgan Stanley. Along with my colleagues, bringing you a variety of perspectives, I'll be talking about the intersection between U.S. public policy and financial markets. It's Wednesday, July 13th, at 10 a.m. in New York. The Supreme Court just finished a busy session, and one of the judgments that investors should pay attention to was for the case, West Virginia vs the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. That judgment said the EPA had overreached on some regulations, embracing something called the Major Questions Doctrine, whereby the court suggested regulators should not be using prior legal authority to decide issues of major economic and political significance. Said more simply, the ruling suggests regulators need explicit authorization from Congress rather than just stretching current legal authorization. So the ruling basically punts many of the EPA's climate policies back to Congress for deliberation. And that matters for investors because it might be a motivating factor in the Democrats getting their budget reconciliation plan over the finish line. Without being able to rely on the EPA to enact climate policies, Democrats may be willing to compromise more within their own party to get done a package of tax increase funded initiatives on climate and health care. And recent news flow suggests Democrats continue to make progress in this direction. So let's break down what's reportedly in this package that investors should be aware of. There's a plan to let Medicare negotiate the prices it pays for certain prescription drugs. That's a fundamental challenge for the pharma sector. But as our pharma team has noted, it's not an existential one. And so the sector could still be an outperformer in a market that needs to further price in the potential for a recession, an environment where defensive sectors like pharma typically do well. Also reportedly in the plan is fresh spending on, and tax breaks for, clean energy technologies, a potential demand boost for the clean tech sector which our analysts remain quite constructive on.But funding that plan is several tax adjustments, including a potential implementation of a corporate book tax, which you can think of as a corporate minimum tax. This could exacerbate corporate margin pressures from inflation in the economic growth slowdown. So while the sectors we just discussed could be outperformers, they would likely do so against the backdrop of a bear market for equities overall. With Congress in session ahead of its August recess, we expect to learn more in the next couple of weeks, and we'll, of course, keep you in the loop. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps more people find the show.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA not only throws a substantial hurdle ahead of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants, it takes a vicious swipe at the entirety of the modern administrative state. Using a new invention—the “major questions doctrine”—the Supreme Court has set up an easy way for conservative judges across the country to invalidate any regulation that a judge finds to be of “vast significance.” The Supreme Court has been on a bender of recent: reproductive rights (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization), school prayer (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District), tribal sovereignty (Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta), separation of church and state (Carson v. Makin), gun regulation (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen). All of these controversial decisions were decided by a majority of Republican-appointed judges. This is not a coincidence but the product of a 40+ year movement by conservative activists. How can environmentalists and progressives restrain the Supreme Court before we lose any more rights and still have a democracy? Listen in to hear more.Support the show

This week, David Plotz, Emily Bazelon, and John Dickerson discuss the Supreme Court's gutting of administrative authority in West Virginia v. EPA, the case coming next term that could upend U.S. elections, and the Highland Park shooting. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley for The Atlantic: “The Nondelegation Doctrine Is A Fable”  Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley for The Columbia Law Review: "Delegation at the Founding" Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Susan Elizabeth Shepard for Willamette Week: “A Student at an Oregon Community College Says Instructors Flunked Her for Being a Porn Actress. She's Suing.” John: How Normal Am I? David: Twitter thread about: Jaroszewicz, et al: “How Effective Is (More) Money? Randomizing Unconditional Cash Transfer Amounts in the US” Listener chatter from Jocelyn Frank: “Humanity's First Cosmic Gallery of Children's Art: What the Youngest Members of Our Young Species Most Cherish About Life on Earth” Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Kevin Bendis. Research by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, David Plotz, Emily Bazelon, and John Dickerson discuss the Supreme Court's gutting of administrative authority in West Virginia v. EPA, the case coming next term that could upend U.S. elections, and the Highland Park shooting. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley for The Atlantic: “The Nondelegation Doctrine Is A Fable”  Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley for The Columbia Law Review: "Delegation at the Founding" Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Susan Elizabeth Shepard for Willamette Week: “A Student at an Oregon Community College Says Instructors Flunked Her for Being a Porn Actress. She's Suing.” John: How Normal Am I? David: Twitter thread about: Jaroszewicz, et al: “How Effective Is (More) Money? Randomizing Unconditional Cash Transfer Amounts in the US” Listener chatter from Jocelyn Frank: “Humanity's First Cosmic Gallery of Children's Art: What the Youngest Members of Our Young Species Most Cherish About Life on Earth” Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Kevin Bendis. Research by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Generation shifting of powerplant types is a “major question” that the legislature did not clearly designate to the EPA.Support the show

When the Supreme Court ruled that OSHA's Covid vaccine mandate was unlawful, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately that the Court's decision “rightly applies the major questions doctrine.” The Major Questions Doctrine has been increasingly important in the Supreme Court and lower courts' decisions, among judges who believe (as Gorsuch puts it) that the doctrine “ensures that the national government's... Source

When the Supreme Court ruled that OSHA's Covid vaccine mandate was unlawful, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately that the Court's decision “rightly applies the major questions doctrine.” The Major Questions Doctrine has been increasingly important in the Supreme Court and lower courts' decisions, among judges who believe (as Gorsuch puts it) that the doctrine “ensures that the national government's power to make the laws that govern us remains where Article I of the Constitution says it belongs—with the people's elected representatives.” To discuss the past, present, and future of the Major Questions Doctrine, Adam White chats with Professors Gillian Metzger and Kristin Hickman. This episode features Kristin Hickman, Gillian Metzger, and Adam White.

When the Supreme Court ruled that OSHA's Covid vaccine mandate was unlawful, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately that the Court's decision “rightly applies the major questions doctrine.” The Major Questions Doctrine has been increasingly important in the Supreme Court and lower courts' decisions, among judges who believe (as Gorsuch puts it) that the doctrine “ensures that […]