Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download The Rule of Five PDF full book. Access full book title The Rule of Five by Richard J. Lazarus. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Richard J. Lazarus Publisher: Belknap Press ISBN: 0674238125 Category : Law Languages : en Pages : 369
Book Description
A renowned Supreme Court advocate tells the inside story of Massachusetts v. EPA, the landmark case that made it possible for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses--from the Bush administration's fierce opposition, to the internecine conflicts among the petitioners, to the razor-thin 5-4 victory.
Author: Richard J. Lazarus Publisher: Belknap Press ISBN: 0674238125 Category : Law Languages : en Pages : 369
Book Description
A renowned Supreme Court advocate tells the inside story of Massachusetts v. EPA, the landmark case that made it possible for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses--from the Bush administration's fierce opposition, to the internecine conflicts among the petitioners, to the razor-thin 5-4 victory.
Author: Andrew P. Morriss Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 18
Book Description
In Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.Ct. 1438 (2007), the Supreme Court weakened the rules governing standing and overturned an Environmental Protection Agency decision not to regulate mobile source emissions of greenhouse gases. This article, forthcoming in the Cato Supreme Court Review, critiques both aspects of the Court's decision. The relaxation of standing rules is unfortunate because it makes it easier for interest groups to press for special interest regulation by agencies. In this case, the states that sought to force EPA to regulate were largely ones whose energy consumption is less dependent on hydrocarbon sources than the median, while those supporting the agency were largely more dependent on hydrocarbons for their energy supplies than the median. With respect to the appropriateness of regulation of mobile source greenhouse gas emissions, the Court's opinion ignores the interests created by the structure of the Clean Air Act.
Author: Jody Freeman Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007), the Supreme Court held, among other things, that the EPA has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and that the agency cannot decline to do so on political grounds. We analyze the logic of MA v. EPA and its broader implications for administrative law and regulatory policy. We locate MA v. EPA in the context of the Justices' increasing worries about the politicization of administrative expertise, particularly under the Bush administration. The majority's solution for this worry, we suggest, is a kind of expertise-forcing: the Court attempts to ensure that agencies actually do exercise expert judgment, and that they do so free from outside political pressures, even or especially political pressures emanating from the White House or political appointees in the agencies. Whereas a line of caselaw and commentary stemming from Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council sees presidential politics and expertise as complementary, expertise-forcing has its roots in an older vision of administrative law, one in which presidential politics and expertise are fundamentally antagonistic. Because the Court subjects the denial of a rulemaking petition to hard look review, we suggest that MA v. EPA is State Farm for a new generation.
Author: Bradford C. Mank Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
Many issues, especially potential environmental catastrophes caused by climate change, affect not just the living, but also future generations. The bias in our political system against addressing the interests of future generations poses serious obstacles in solving long-term environmental problems such as global warming. Because future generations cannot vote, unelected federal judges are more suited to protect their interests than the political branches. An important question is whether anyone has standing to sue on behalf of future generations in the federal courts. The Supreme Court's Article III standing test requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that they have personally suffered an injury that is actual and imminent, and not merely conjectural or hypothetical. For non-governmental plaintiffs, there is arguably conflicting law regarding whether and when probabilistic risks justify standing, especially where a plaintiff seek a substantive remedy. For uncertain risks that have a probability of less than fifty percent of occurring during the plaintiff's lifetime, a court might deny standing because the risks are too uncertain. In Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), the Supreme Court held that Massachusetts had standing to challenge the EPA's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide because states are entitled to more lenient standing criteria than ordinary citizens. The Court considered evidence from computer models that climate change through the year 2100 would result in ever rising sea levels and damage to Massachusetts coastline. It is unclear whether an ordinary citizen could raise a claim involving global warming because the harm is generalized and probabilistic. Despite the actual and imminent requirement limitation of suits on behalf of future generations, Massachusetts supports the protection of future generations in some circumstances. Under the parens patriae doctrine, states have a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the health and safety interests of their citizens. There is a good argument that states have a quasi-sovereign interest in not just their current citizens but also their future citizens. Furthermore, the modern public trust doctrine and several state laws recognize that states have a duty to protect natural resources for future generations. Because both federal and state law recognizes the important role of states in protecting natural resources for future generations, federal courts should apply a liberal approach to standing issues when states bring parens patriae or public trust suits to protect those resources for the state's future citizens. This is the first article to consider whether Massachusetts supports standing rights for future generations. It builds upon and goes beyond my forthcoming article in the WILLIAM & MARY LAW REVIEW examining the impacts of Massachusetts on standing doctrine. Bradford C. Mank, Should States Have Greater Standing Rights Than Ordinary Citizens?: Massachusetts v. EPA's New Standing Test for States, WILLIAM & MARY L. REV. (Forthcoming 2008).
Author: Richard J. Lazarus
Author: Richard J. Lazarus
Author: Robert Meltz
Author: United States. Supreme Court
Author: Andrew P. Morriss
Author: 
Author: 
Author: Jody Freeman
Author: Bradford C. Mank
Author: 
Author: