In the News

One might assume that Trump’s changes to the immigration system can be easily undone — particularly since they were put in place unilaterally through executive actions (and refusals to do the work of government). And the administration has an overwhelming record of legal failure, according to a database of major Trump regulatory actions maintained by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law. In nearly every immigration case that has had some sort of resolution, a court either ruled against the agency or the relevant agency withdrew the action after being sued. Other regulatory actions would also likely be reversed by a new administration. But such reversals would happen slowly, if at all.

“If this ends up being a one-term administration, very little of the regulatory changes will stick,” said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, which monitors lawsuits brought against all the administration’s departments. “The Trump administration has tried to do a lot, but it’s done it in an extraordinarily sloppy way.” According to the institute, courts with judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans have so far ruled against about 84 percent of the 90 energy and environmental regulations, guidance documents and other actions by the Trump administration.

Environmentalists acknowledge a Trump re-election victory would mean new threats to regulation but might not guarantee success of poorly crafted deregulatory efforts. “The Trump administration’s record in defending these rollbacks has been really atrocious thus far,” Environmental Defense Fund attorney Tomás Carbonell said during the environmental law conference, citing a statistic from New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity that the administration has lost 83 percent of its legal fights to date with respect to deregulatory efforts across multiple federal agencies.

The New York University School of Law's nonpartisan Institute for Policy Integrity also faulted the EPA for declining to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the changes, noting that the agency cited the March 2018 guidance in claiming its proposed rule would not result in a change to existing regulations. "An agency cannot evade its responsibility to provide a reasoned explanation for a policy change — including a discussion of the relevant factor of cost — simply by announcing the change in a memorandum prior to codifying it in a regulation," the institute said.

On October 2, the Institute for Policy Integrity and the Volatility and Risk Institute at NYU Stern School of Business co-hosted a conference on “Corporate Climate Risk: Assessment, Disclosure, and Action.” The conference explored the systemic risks that climate change poses to financial markets and the emerging calls from investors, governments, and other parties for companies to disclose these risks.

According to prominent medical doctors, we are in the midst of “the biggest public health challenge of the 21st century.” But it’s not the one you think. The toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is enormous and devastating. But the public health impacts of climate change could be vastly greater. The medical profession is demanding that we recognize climate change for the health crisis that it already is, rather than the environmental catastrophe that it threatens to become. 

Multiple amicus briefs were filed in support of Attorney General Becerra’s challenge of the Trump Administration’s “Healthcare Refusal Rule." The Institute for Policy Integrity wrote that "It is difficult to imagine how a rule could cause more workers to assert a right to deny care without also causing an increase in denials of care. HHS cannot have it both ways."

In this episode of the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State's podcast, Professor Caroline Cecot of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School discusses her new working paper, “Congress and the Stability of the Cost-Benefit Analysis Consensus,” with Executive Director Adam White and with Professor Ricky Revesz, NYU’s Lawrence King Professor of Law and Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity.

Ideological leaning could make the court even more favorable toward oil and gas interests and could come into play in environmental cases as the justices resolve disputes involving climate policy and Trump administration rollbacks of environmental regulations, experts said. Trump’s administration has faced lawsuits over its regulatory rollbacks and efforts to fast-track oil and gas projects, winning 22 such cases but losing 119, according to New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity.

As the prospects for a nationwide carbon price have waned, FERC has begun to change from a sleepy backwater to a central player in climate policy, said Jason Gundlach, a senior attorney at New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity who co-authored a report on carbon pricing. “There’s a recognition that FERC is going to be a major fulcrum in any energy transition policy,” he said.