In the News

For the first time, the Congressional Review Act was invoked to disapprove regulations—including at the EPA—promulgated by a prior Republican administration, writes Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. The Biden administration also found ways to undo several other Trump-era rules without using either the CRA or rulemaking, he writes, and explains how.

Two key principles define American federalism. First, states can generally pursue policies favored by their people, even if other states prefer different policies. But, second, states cannot pursue policies that seriously harm other states. Due to interstate mobility, infections resulting from inadequate policies in Florida will harm other states, burdening their healthcare systems, increasing their healthcare costs, and worsening the wellbeing of their citizens and the state of their economies. 

With one stroke of the pen, the FTC can compel hotels to disclose all-in pricing from the moment in which a consumer searches for rates and eliminate “drip pricing.” In a well-argued column in the New York Times, Max Sarinsky argues why this matters to consumers and businesses.

In a petition to the FTC, Brian Canfield, Jack Lienke, Matthew Peterson and Max Sarinsky of the Institute for Policy Integrity argue that drip pricing serves no legitimate business purpose and harms consumers, and so should be outlawed by the FTC.

The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to request that the regulator ban so-called “drip pricing” practices. Should the FTC agree, such rules would have a dramatic impact on ticket marketplaces, as such “drip prices” are common on both primary and secondary ticketing systems.

New York University’s regulatory policy center is urging EPA to adopt “best practices” for TSCA risk management rules that would lead to stringent limits on existing chemicals, potentially offering legal and policy justifications the agency could use to grant environmentalists’ requests to go beyond what they see as too-lenient Trump-era chemical evaluations.

Advocates of the newly formed Initiative on Climate Risk and Resilience Law (ICRRL) are advocating the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) bolster climate change protections with the finance industry. The ICRRL is a joint initiative that includes the Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, and the Vanderbilt Law School.

Climate change — already a well-known threat to our weather patterns, infrastructure, electric grids, health and safety — also presents a profound and growing threat to our financial system. Public and private sector economic experts must — and increasingly are starting to — take steps to protect against that threat, including at the highest levels of the federal government.

The SEC announced that the new climate focus would not be limited to its Division of Corporate Finance—the SEC has created a new Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement. A recent report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU and the Environmental Defense Fund contends that Corporate Finance has failed to use the review process to elicit more disclosure.

With the new Administration in Washington, many think tanks and advocacy groups are making their voices heard on crafting mandatory climate disclosure regulations. A new report from the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU and the Environmental Defense Fund advocates adoption by the SEC of a climate disclosure mandate.