In the News

A report released by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law said the EPA’s reasoning was “not grounded in fact.” For instance, the EPA says lower gas prices are making fuel-efficient cars less attractive, and cites flagging demand for electric cars as a sign the current standards are unrealistic.

Automakers face higher fines for violating stringent federal fuel-efficiency standards requiring them to produce produce car fleets that average over 50 miles per gallon by 2025 after a court overturned a Trump administration decision to postpone a hike in the penalties. Sylwia Bialek, economic fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, which filed a brief as an impartial adviser to the court on the case, said the court ruling overturning NHTSA’s decision to delay the fine increase for emission violators is significant, despite the fact that Trump administration is now weighing rolling back the rules completely.

Challenges to an EPA rule delaying a chemical safety regulation aimed at protecting emergency responders being argued March 16 could pose a test of the Trump administration’s push to roll back regulations. “Agencies need explicit statutory authority for their actions,” Bethany Davis Noll, litigation director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

Without a doubt, stronger limits on abusers’ ability to obtain guns are needed to save women’s lives. An equally critical step that Congress can take is to improve access to protective orders by increasing funding for the Legal Services Corporation. According to a recent report from the Institute for Policy Integrity, 83 percent of victims represented by an attorney successfully obtained a protective order, as compared with just 32 percent of victims without an attorney.

In the Dec. 14 press conference, Trump said the government had taken 67 deregulatory actions through Sept. 30 — with an annual savings to society of $570 million — and had imposed just three new regulations. The administration’s cost figures ignore projected benefits for regulations it has blocked, distorting the actual impacts on society, said Denise Grab, a lawyer with the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law.

“I do think it’s clear that Cordray’s departure will bring the CFPB closer into the president’s orbit,” said Richard L. Revesz, a law professor at New York University. “And the fact of the matter is that the director — the permanent director, whoever the president nominates — will also share the president’s agenda.”

“There is a real need for the people who live nearby, and for the people who are responding to these accidents, to know what they are going to encounter when they put out the fire, or when people nearby are trying to protect their families,” Noll said. “So now to turn around and cancel those protections — EPA clearly did not think this through, and that is a real danger to public health.”

Independent agencies should mirror executive branch practices to overcome judicial scrutiny.

“A new delay would essentially amount to an effective repeal and that is something that would have to be justified,” Bethany Davis Noll, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law, tells the publication. “Labor has a huge burden to overcome if they want to delay this.”

Most of us employ informal cost-benefit analysis (CBA)—or what Benjamin Franklin described as weighing pros and cons—whenever we make decisions in our daily lives. It seems fair to expect federal agencies to do the same when considering new rules. Surprisingly, though, some agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), are not required to engage in CBA before issuing a rule.