14041 research outputs found
Sort by
The Reasonableness of the “Reasonableness” Standard of Habeas Corpus Review Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Get PDF
\u3ci\u3eWest Virginia v. EPA\u3c/i\u3e: Some Answers about Major Questions
Get PDFIn West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (WV v. EPA) the Supreme Court rejected an expansive reading of Section 7411 of the Clean Air Act. Expressly invoking the “major questions doctrine” for the first time in a majority opinion, the Court concluded Section 7411 of does not allow the EPA to require generation shifting to reduce greenhouse emissions. This decision rested on the longstanding and fundamental constitutional principle that agencies only have that regulatory authority Congress delegated to them. The Court further bolstered the argument that delegations of broad regulatory authority should not be lightly presumed, but also left substantial questions about the major questions doctrine unanswered. By skimping on statutory analysis and front-loading consideration of whether a case presents a major question, the also Court failed to provide much guidance for lower courts. While WV v. EPA represents a missed opportunity to clarify and ground the major questions doctrine, it remains a tremendously important decision, and will be cited routinely in legal challenges to new regulatory initiatives. While limiting the scope of Section 7411, the decision did not curtail the EPA’s traditional air pollution control authorities, nor does it preclude the EPA from using such authorities to regulate GHGs. It does, however, make it more challenging for the EPA or other agencies to develop new climate change policies relying upon preexisting statutory authority directed at other problems
Response to Wasserman and Rhodes: The Texas S.B. 8 Litigation and “Our Formalism”
Get PDFIn Solving the Procedural Puzzles of the Texas Heartbeat Act and Its Imitators: The Limits and Opportunities of Offensive Litigation, Professors Howard Wasserman and Rocky Rhodes explain why the U.S. Supreme Court correctly rejected the pre-enforcement legal challenge brought by abortion providers challenging Texas’s draconian abortion law, S.B. 8, which was specifically designed to evade such challenges. Wasserman and Rhodes also provide grounds for hope on the part of future similarly situated challengers to S.B. 8 copycat laws, outlining a route by which the clinics could have engaged in offensive federal-court litigation against “any person” plaintiffs who seek to bring lawsuits under S.B. 8.
Wasserman and Rhodes’s argument is persuasive and elegant. It works within a formalist maze of procedural complexities, charting the narrowest of pathways through that maze. But in doing so, it may underestimate the extent to which S.B. 8 succeeds in chilling any attempts to provoke the sort of “any person” lawsuit that is a necessary predicate to bringing the sort of offensive litigation that the authors advocate. This Response, therefore, argues instead for a return to the true spirit of Ex parte Young and to the policies underlying the availability of pre-enforcement injunctive relief in constitutional cases
Remembering Alumna Rhonda Ferguson (LAW \u2794)
No full textMemorial for alumna Rhonda Ferguson, LAW \u279
The Clean Water Act at 50: An Interdisciplinary Symposium (Panel 2)
No full textAn interdisciplinary symposium on the Clean Water Act after 50 years
Access Repository Dashboard
Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇