In the News

By using data from 1999, the administration ignored any savings those business provided developers, according to Jason Schwartz, legal director at the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity. The lacking analysis underscores how the Trump administration’s pro-industry rhetoric ignores the ecological restoration business, he said.

According to a tally of lawsuits by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, as of Dec. 10 agencies had won just two out of 24 cases challenging their deregulation, a win rate of 8 percent.

A recent government report predicts dire consequences from climate change. That complicates efforts to weaken environmental laws.

Mr. Trump’s ambitious agenda has been slowed, however, by unusually high losses in the courts. Since summer 2017, the Trump administration has lost 20 of 22 court cases challenging its deregulatory actions, according to data compiled by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

The tumultuous state of US environmental regulation during the Trump administration was implicit in the title of the 10th anniversary conference of NYU Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity: “Energy and Environmental Policy: The Quest for Rationality.” But when environmental policy experts convened at the Law School in late September, the two keynote speakers, both seasoned veterans of regulatory battles, articulated reasons for cautious optimism.

“This report will be used in court in significant ways,” said Richard L. Revesz, an expert in environmental law at New York University. “I can imagine a lawyer for the Trump administration being asked by a federal judge, ‘How can the federal government acknowledge the seriousness of the problem, and then set aside the rules that protect the American people from the problem?’ And they might squirm around coming up with an answer.”

The largest expanse of pristine wilderness in the United States, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), is at risk of becoming a staging ground for heavy machinery, with oil drilling projects threatening to displace and damage wildlife and natural ecosystems.

Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, said plaintiffs would likely employ a two-pronged argument to defend the waiver from the Trump administration’s attack.

“Our state has spoken loud and clear that we recognize the importance of the industry to the state’s economic well-being,” said Colorado Petroleum Council Executive Director Tracee Bentley, in a statement. The council claimed that passage of the “setback” rule would effectively outlaw new drilling in the state and cost some 150,000 jobs. (Such industry job estimates are almost invariably excessive, an Institute for Policy Integrity study showed in 2012.)

“It’s significant that Democrats now have this power,” said Richard Revesz. “A lot of the efforts to roll back Obama administration regulations are on weak legal footing. There are glaring legal or analytical weaknesses. Bringing attention to them can be a good strategy.”