All News Clips
-
Six Takeaways From the Republican Convention
However, the Trump administration’s attempt to deregulate was also often thwarted by the courts. All told, the Trump administration lost 57 percent of cases challenging its environmental policies, a much higher rate of loss than previous administrations, according to a database maintained by New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity.
-
Inside the Project 2025 Plan to Gut Climate Regs
Project 2025 urges the agency to “revise guidance documents” for the so-called social cost of carbon, while another chapter proposes ending its use altogether. Co-benefits — a rule’s health and environmental advantages that aren’t tied directly to reducing a targeted pollutant — have been persona non grata with conservatives for years. But the Trump EPA did count them in its climate rules — which showed minuscule benefits due in part to low social cost values for greenhouse gases. Jason Schwartz, policy director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, said sidelining benefits could make rules less legally durable. “I think that the courts have been clear in a number of cases that it would actually be arbitrary for an agency to ignore — or to really treat differently — co-benefits or indirect costs,” he said.
-
Challenges to FERC Grid Rule Set up Post-Chevron Court Test
The state commissioners’ objections to FERC’s order likely would not be the case to introduce the claim to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because their rehearing request to FERC was limited to factual questions about the agency’s statutory interpretation, said Jennifer Danis, federal energy policy director at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. “That is not to say that other Order 1920 suits might not invoke Loper Bright or Chevron’s demise more squarely, and I suspect that many will try arguments related to that out for size,” Danis said in an email.
-
What Trump 2.0 Could Mean for the Environment
Jason Schwartz, the legal director of the Institute for Policy Integrity, said the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks often ignored congressional statutes or inflated the costs of regulations on industry. Mr. Trump’s allies have presumably learned from those missteps, experts said.
-
Trumponomics Would Not Be As Bad As Most Expect
The number of restrictions in the Code of Federal Regulations, a proxy for the intensity of regulation in America, was basically unchanged under Mr Trump. What is more, his administration was stymied by the courts. It was unsuccessful in nearly 80% of litigation over its use of federal agencies, according to the Institute for Policy Integrity, a research group.
-
Energy Agency Public Interest Actions Face Scrutiny Post-Chevron
The DOE’s recent pause on LNG export licenses is a prudent step to gather the type of record that courts would need to see after the Chevron decision, said Jennifer Danis, federal energy policy director for the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. The ruling in Loper Bright offers terms that can grant agencies flexibility when phrases such as “reasonable” or “appropriate” are in the statute, Danis said. The Natural Gas Act standard for DOE to determine whether LNG exports are consistent with the “public interest” is “such a standard that evidences Congressional intent to leave this to agency discretion,” she said.
-
Will the Demise of Chevron Deference Make Our Immigration Crisis Better or Worse?
I have noted that according to decades’ worth of studies compiled by Bethany Davis Noll, litigation director at the Institute for Policy Integrity, federal agencies have historically prevailed in about 70 percent of the legal challenges to their regulatory actions. But Noll’s study reviewing 278 Trump-era agency actions (48 involving immigration) found that federal agencies prevailed only 23 percent of the time. As to appeals, Noll reported that “[o]f the appeals that the government took, agencies lost on appeal 38% of the time, … won reversal … in 12%, ... [and] another 48% … were pending.”
-
Supreme Court Broadly Shifts Power From Federal Agencies to Judges
Altogether, [the Supreme Court's] actions to transfer authority from agencies to the judiciary could curtail a wide range of financial, environmental, workplace and consumer protections. “It’s just part of a continuing trend with the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court in particular, exercising more and more power … at the expense, potentially, of the other branches,” said Don Goodson, deputy director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.
-
A Supreme Court Ruling May Make It Harder for Government Agencies to Use Good Science
“Congress doesn’t have the time or expertise to fill in the details for thousands of regulations, and it’s hard to anticipate the twists and turns of the future and exactly what [lawmakers] need to spell out specifically,” says Dena Adler, a senior attorney at New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity. Agencies use their expertise to turn broad-brush statutes into nitty-gritty policies, and the courts intervene only in extreme circumstances.
-
Analyzing Major Rules in the Courts
As we all await the next administrative law earthquake from the Supreme Court, it may be worth taking stock of just how much the ground has already shifted. In our new article, Major Rules in the Courts: An Empirical Study of Challenges to Federal Agencies’ Major Rules, we provide this analysis. Using a novel dataset of all 1,870 major rules (as defined by the Congressional Review Act) issued from 1996 through the end of the Trump Administration, we analyze whether a major rule issued today is as likely to be challenged and withstand the challenge as a rule issued over 20 years ago. In addition to answering those overarching questions, we break down win rates by presidential administration and agency, as well as by party of the deciding judges’ appointing President. Along the way, we examine trends in forum shopping and the use of Chevron deference, among other variables.