-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on EPA’s Revocation of the California Auto Emissions Waiver
We filed a brief in the D.C. Circuit supporting a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to revoke the waiver of preemption that allowed California (and more than a dozen states following California's standards) to set critical auto emission standards to further restrict greenhouse gases and other harmful air pollutants. EPA wrongfully concluded that it has virtually unconstrained authority to revoke a preemption waiver under Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act. We explain how the agency overlooks key countervailing principles and misconstrues the purpose and mechanics of the waiver provision.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on Borrower Defense Rule
We filed a brief in a Southern District of New York case concerning the Department of Education’s new Borrower Defense rule, which would weaken the relief provided to student loan borrowers and increase the burden of proof required to prevail. Although the Department of Education projects that the rule’s main effect will be a substantial reduction in student-loan discharges, it disregards nearly all of the real-world costs that such a reduction entails. The Department ignores the findings of its previous 2016 rule, fails to consider serious costs of its new rule, and extols implausible regulatory benefits. We explain how the Department’s rule is arbitrary and capricious.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on Revisions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Under recent revisions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, nearly 700,000 current beneficiaries would lose eligibility—harming the health of those individuals and likely causing economic disruption in the food sector. We filed an amicus brief in a federal lawsuit challenging the rule, detailing how the Department of Agriculture’s analysis fails to assess the profound and widespread costs of substantial disenrollment from SNAP assistance.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief in Rio Grande LNG Case
If constructed, the Rio Grande liquefied natural gas terminal and pipeline would be responsible for greenhouse gas emissions resulting in billions of dollars in climate damages. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) analysis estimates the quantity of the project’s emissions but does not analyze the context, intensity, or significance of the incremental climate damages they will cause. We submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that explains how FERC’s failure to monetize the project’s climate damages using Social Cost of Carbon estimates is arbitrary.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on Navigable Waters Protection Rule
In April, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers published the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which considerably restricts the waters and wetlands that are federally protected under the Clean Water Act. We filed a brief in the Northern District of California focusing on the agencies’ economic analysis, which the agencies use to obscure the rule’s anticipated harms.
-
Court Filings
Fourth Circuit Amicus Briefs on Title X Rule
Last year, the Trump administration finalized its Title X “gag rule,” which prohibits funded family planning service providers from referring clients for abortion and requires Title X facilities to be physically separate from facilities that provide abortion. We’ve filed two briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the ongoing challenge of the rule.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on EPA’s Clean Power Plan Replacement Rule
Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) replaced the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan, which sought substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, with the so-called Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, a far weaker policy that will, at best, yield modest reductions below business-as-usual emissions and, at worst, increase pollution from the electric sector. We filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit highlighting three key errors in EPA’s rationale for repealing the Clean Power Plan. Specifically, we explain, EPA misstates regulatory precedent and Clean Air Act legislative history supporting the Clean Power Plan and disregards the substantial harms that the ACE Rule will cause.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on New Jersey’s Zero-Emissions Credits Program
In 2018, New Jersey established a Zero-Emissions Credits (ZECs) program, which provides subsidies to the state’s nuclear power plants for reducing carbon emissions in the energy sector. Our amicus brief explains how the Social Cost of Carbon is the best available estimate for valuing harms caused by carbon dioxide emissions. We also argue that the ZECs program should account for the benefits of avoided emissions both inside and outside of New Jersey.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Brief on Dust-Lead Hazard Standards
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule revising standards for lead found in dust on floors, window sills, and in soil. Our amicus brief critiques the rule, which forgoes net beneficial options in favor of weaker standards that will cause significant harms to public health.
-
Court Filings
Amicus Briefs on Homeland Security’s “Public Charge” Rule
In August, the Department of Homeland Security finalized the “public charge” rule, which seeks to deny lawful permanent residency to immigrants who have participated in public assistance programs like Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the Section 8 housing voucher program. Multiple federal district courts have since enjoined the rule from taking effect and Policy Integrity filed amicus briefs supporting those injunctions on appeal. Our briefs explain how the Department failed to meaningfully assess many of the substantial social costs of the large-scale disenrollment from public assistance programs that will result from the rule, and also failed to identify any significant social benefits from the rule.
Viewing recent projects in Court Filings