In the News

In a recent post for the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice and Comment blog, the regulatory policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, Max Sarinsky, argued that administrative agencies should aim to preemptively rebut major questions doctrine challenges by citing previous agency actions. Sarinsky identified new Environmental Protection Agency vehicle pollution standards as an example.

Environmentalists and their allies say EPA’s recently finalized updates to its Risk Management Program (RMP) rule leaves out many measures they believe are necessary to ensure it covers all facilities at risk of accidental releases, in particular because the agency rejected calls to expand the list of chemicals whose use at a site triggers RMP requirements. “Safeguards are only helpful where they’re applicable,” Dena Adler, senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) at New York University, told Inside EPA by email.

The court’s March 29, 2024, decision in Sierra Club v. FERC held that “FERC enjoys broad discretion” when it considers requests by pipeline companies to extend their timeline to put a project into service. However, the D.C. Circuit has previously offered course corrections to FERC in pipeline cases, and FERC still faces legal vulnerability with its current approach. Al Huang, a panelist at the 2023 Roundtable, recently called on FERC to issue “comprehensive guidance … to aid both FERC and permit applicants, and increase the legal durability of the Commission’s decisions.”

“EPA’s thorough analysis also offers a critical roadmap for Department of Justice litigators who will soon brief this issue. Other agencies should study EPA’s approach and follow suit,” argues Max Sarinsky, the regulatory policy director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, in a March 25 blog post. He adds: “EPA details how its new rule is consistent with decades of agency practice and legislative purpose,” his blog post says, adding that the agency explained how the Clean Air Act text, legislative history and past rules are all consistent with considering and promoting electric vehicles.

In the nearly two years since the Supreme Court upended administrative law with its formal introduction of the MQD in West Virginia, federal agencies, scholars, and advocates have been coming up with ways to shore up new regulations against potentially-heightened scrutiny. Often these recommendations come in the form of particular analyses that an agency could include in a regulatory preamble that rebuts claims that a regulation is novel, transformative, economically significant, or any of the Court’s other supposed markers of “majorness.” For example, alongside the Institute for Policy Integrity, our organization urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to include a detailed accounting of “regulatory antecedents” in its final clean car rule to help rebut claims that it was a “novel” or “unheralded” agency action; as Max Sarinsky recently detailed, the EPA thoroughly did so in its final regulation.

"At FERC’s EJ Roundtable one year ago, we called for the Commission to publish comprehensive guidance on environmental justice. Such guidance would aid both FERC and permit applicants, and increase the legal durability of the Commission’s decisions. It would also make good on commitments from FERC and the Biden Administration to center environmental justice in policy decisionmaking... One year later, however, the Commission has not taken substantial steps towards the goal of integrating environmental justice into its processes and decision making. We continue to see projects that are not in the public interest approved, leaving behind vulnerable communities.” - Al Huang, Director of Environmental Justice, Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law.

The American Public Health Association, Smart Surfaces Coalition, Institute for Policy Integrity, and others can support a broader social cost benefit to determine what performance levels to require in procurement standards.

In a forthcoming article in the Georgetown Environmental Law Review, Richard L. Revesz, the AnBryce Professor of Law at New York University Law School, and Max Sarinsky, regulatory policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, propose that federal agencies preemptively address challenges under the major questions doctrine by drawing comparisons to prior agency actions.

“EPA’s thorough analysis also offers a critical roadmap for Department of Justice litigators who will soon brief this issue. Other agencies should study EPA’s approach and follow suit,” argues Max Sarinsky, the regulatory policy director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI), in a March 25 blog post on the Yale Journal on Regulation. ... “Far from being transformative or extraordinary, the SEC’s . . . rule is a run-of-the-mill use of the SEC’s authority with ample precedent,” argues IPI legal fellow Bridget Pals, in a July 2022 Medium article about the then-proposed version of the measure.

Earlier this week, Max Sarinsky published an excellent piece about how agencies could get ahead of major questions doctrine (MQD) challenges to new rules... In the same spirit as Sarinsky’s blog post, we articulate another way to rebut MQD challenges to new agency actions.