-
Comments on HHS Changes to Grant Recipient Regulations
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing to change regulations governing grant recipients, such as foster-care and adoption programs. The rule would allow discrimination on the basis of non-merit factors including sexual orientation or gender identity, likely leading to more denials of service to qualified LGBT individuals and same-sex couples. We submitted comments detailing how HHS fails to provide any analysis of the proposed rule’s costs.
-
Comments to the Department of Labor on Tip Pooling
The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (DOL) is proposing to implement new tip regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We submitted comments asking DOL to provide a more detailed explanation of the proposed rule and improve its underlying analysis.
-
Comments to EPA on TSCA Chemicals Regulation
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to regulate four chemicals that have serious environmental and health risks. We submitted comments supporting EPA and suggesting ways the agency can strengthen its proposal and, additionally, urging EPA to reexamine its decision not to regulate a fifth chemical.
-
Comments on Duty Length Regulations for Commercial Vehicle Drivers
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is proposing to revise duty length regulations for drivers of commercial motor vehicles. We submitted comments focusing on how FMCSA can improve its analysis of costs and benefits to social welfare and driver health.
-
Comments to FDA on Health Warning Labels for Cigarettes
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to place new, more effective health warning labels on cigarette packages and advertisements. We submitted comments supporting the proposal and suggesting ways the agency can strengthen its assessment of the new labels’ costs and benefits.
-
Comments to EPA on Coal Combustion Residuals Rule
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed to significantly weaken requirements for the disposal of coal combustion residuals from coal-fired power plants. We submitted comments focusing on inadequacies in EPA’s assessment of the rule’s costs and benefits.
-
Court Strikes Down Rule Refusing to Limit Cross-State Air Pollution
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA’s Close-Out Rule, which allowed upwind states to continue emitting ground-level ozone pollution that significantly contributes to downwind air quality problems. The agency justified the rule by falling back on its analysis from the Cross-State Update, a prior rule that had provided only a partial remedy to interstate emissions. We filed an amicus brief, which argued that EPA fundamentally misunderstood its job in analyzing and choosing between cost-effective options.
-
Comments to USDA on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed revisions to eligibility for its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. We submitted comments focusing on serious flaws in the agency’s analysis of the rule’s impacts.
-
Amicus Briefs on HHS Conscience Rule
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently finalized a rule that expands protections for healthcare workers who deny care based on moral or religious beliefs. We submitted amicus briefs in support of challenges to the rule filed by states, municipalities, medical organizations, and civil-rights advocates. Our argument details how HHS’s analysis of the rule’s economic impacts ignores significant costs while touting entirely speculative benefits. We submitted briefs to the Southern District of New York, Northern District of California, and the District of Maryland.
-
Comments to HHS on Proposed Weakening of Healthcare Nondiscrimination Rule
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently proposed a rule that would narrow the scope of civil rights protections for patients under the Affordable Care Act. We submitted comments that focus on serious flaws in HHS’s regulatory impact analysis for the proposal, which ignores potentially substantial costs to patients and makes unsupported claims regarding the proposal’s benefits.
Viewing recent projects in Consumer and Healthcare Protection