On the latest effort by fossil friends -- supported by amicus US Chamber of Commerce, which is filled with companies that support climate action -- to block even the most conventional controls on emissions from our biggest sources. https://t.co/bWIx2DMu0u
@jacklienke@nyulaw@PolicyIntegrity A lot to process for some of us who came to think of you as definitional of the IPI's ultra-talented but also ultra-modest style, but a boon for the Law Huskies!
But this โChevron-violates-the-APAโ ruling preserves something important: Going forward, Congress may still provide for deferential judicial review -- a position that the Article III-based theory for overturning Chevron favored by Justice Gorsuch would not have.
The Court has corrected the "nitrous oxide" references in the Good Neighbor decision. In the coming days, I'll be noting add'l errors that should prompt more far-reaching changes. (Seriously, EPA should prevail -- as the Act recognizes, we need controls on interstate pollution).
Justice Gorsuch's opinion refers five times to "nitrous oxide" (aka laughing gas) rather than the entirely different chemical compound -- smog-causing "nitrogen oxides" -- actually at issue in the case.
The unselfishness and humbleness of this team is an example for anyone that plays any sport! So proud of you @celtics congrats to everyone from top to bottom! Congrats Al!! #humblydone#nbafinals#celtics#platanopower#banner18 #๐ฉ๐ด๐ฉ๐ด๐ฉ๐ด
Make it make sense. Fossil fuel power plants cause about 1/4 of U.S.CO2 emissions. And the industry *seemed* to support EPAโs efforts to cut them. Now this๐ทย from @Edison_Electric, which reps companies like @SCE@portlandgeneral@xcelenergy@Exelon?!?๐ท
https://t.co/FI5SMTqr9L
@JasonRylander@OrinKerr@CassSunstein Anecdotal to be sure, but during law school I was his sole research assistant for a while, and I can attest that I did nothing of significance, and certainly not ghost-writing! All I remember doing was trying to get him to change "spectre" to "specter" because this is America.
@chris_j_walker @ProfRRothschild ... and that when agencies adopt a regulatory definition of a statutory term per a statutory direction to do so (which Relentless petrs say is ok) ... that isn't "interpretation"
@chris_j_walker @ProfRRothschild Strong claim ... there were lots. But these are excellent candidates. Also, he claim that the Constitution confers on judges alone the power authoritatively to interpret statutes ...