Recent Projects – Court Filings

In recent years, Congress has extensively used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to veto agency rules. A CRA resolution not only rescinds the agency rule, but prevents the agency from ever reissuing a rule that is “substantially the same” as the disapproved rule. This case tests the meaning of “substantially the same.” Our brief defends a prior Sixth Circuit panel’s ruling, explaining that the CRA’s “substantially the same” test looks at the entire rule, not each provision separately. Our brief analyzes the CRA’s text, caselaw, legislative history, and Congressional practice to support this argument. It also explains that Petitioners’ reading is untenable and would produce unprecedented and highly odd results. The interpretation of the “substantially the same” provision will have significant implications for agency authority following a CRA resolution.

In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) modified its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for mifepristone to remove an in-person dispensing requirement (2023 REMS). That action is the subject of this litigation, in which Louisiana argues that the 2023 REMS was arbitrary and capricious. Following the change in presidential administration, the FDA chose not to defend the action on the merits. Instead, in September 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and then-FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary stated that the FDA’s decision suffered from a “lack of adequate consideration” and announced that it would reconsider the 2023 REMS. Our amicus brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, explains that these statements should receive no weight in the Court’s analysis because they postdate the agency’s decision, are outside the administrative record, and are conclusory and fail to grapple with the agency’s prior findings. 

In 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a rule that extended the compliance deadlines for EPA’s performance standards for greenhouse gases and volatile organic compounds from crude oil and natural gas sources. Policy Integrity submitted an amicus brief in the litigation challenging the rule, arguing that EPA’s limited analysis of the rule’s climate and health effects violates the Administrative Procedure Act’s standards of reasoned decisionmaking.

By requiring grid planners to account for all factors driving the need for new transmission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 1920 ensures that grid buildout is based on reality rather than guesswork. Policy Integrity’s amicus brief in support of Order 1920 shows that its mandates are policy-neutral, requiring planners to account for state policies affecting supply (like clean energy requirements) and demand (like data center incentives) alike. This framework respects state authority over policy decisions while ensuring a more cost-effective and reliable grid for electricity customers.

In 2020, EPA issued a rule allowing “major sources” of hazardous air pollution under Section 112 to reclassify as “area sources,” and become subject to less stringent pollution limits. The 2020 rule was challenged in the present litigation and then put into abeyance during the Biden Administration. In 2024, EPA issued another rule, specifying that certain reclassified sources would be subject to equivalent pollution limits as major sources. Last year, Congress disapproved the 2024 rule via a disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act. In an amicus brief submitted in the litigation challenging the 2020 Rule, we explain that the Congressional Review Act is not relevant to the outcome of this case.

In May, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued an order under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act requiring a coal-fired power plant in Michigan to continue operating past its scheduled retirement date. DOE claimed that the plant’s continued operation was necessary to reduce the risk of regional energy supply shortfalls over the summer. But DOE’s claim contradicts the conclusions reached by the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, the entities responsible for ensuring sufficient energy supply to meet regional demand.

In an amicus brief submitted in litigation challenging DOE’s Order, we explain that decisions about “resource adequacy,” or the amount of energy supply necessary to meet demand, belong jurisdictionally to the states, supported by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and regional grid operators. We also describe the complex, region-specific analyses that resource adequacy planning requires. Finally, we explain that DOE is not the proper entity to make decisions about resource adequacy planning, and the reasoning underlying its order does not establish that this specific plant is necessary to regional resource adequacy.

Our amicus brief to the Supreme Court, filed in litigation over the President’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose worldwide tariffs, urges the Court to clarify the major questions doctrine and reaffirm its application only in “extraordinary” cases where the government action is unheralded and would transform the actor’s role. Our brief explains that the President’s unprecedented and broad use of IEEPA triggers the major questions doctrine, counseling skepticism that his tariffs are legal.

Following the announcement of President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, states and businesses across the country filed lawsuits arguing that the President’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs is unlawful. Among other claims, plaintiffs in many of these cases have argued that the President’s tariffs violate the major questions doctrine. We filed amicus curiae briefs in the Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit, and the D.C. Circuit to lay out the major questions doctrine and align the plaintiff’s argument with the Supreme Court caselaw.

In April 2024, EPA finalized a rule setting greenhouse-gas emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles from model years 2027 through 2032. Policy Integrity submitted an amicus brief in merits litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit explaining that EPA's cost-benefit analysis, including its estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases, were based on well-established scientific and economic methodologies.

Section 202 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set and periodically revise standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles which endanger public health or welfare. EPA finalized a rule in April 2024 setting greenhouse-gas and criteria-pollutant standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles from model years 2027 through 2032. Policy Integrity submitted an amicus brief in merits litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit explaining that EPA's cost-benefit analysis, including its estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases, were based on well-established scientific and economic methodologies.