The Good and Bad of the Fifth Circuit's Abortion Pill Ruling
The appeals court's unpublished order avoids some of the district court's errors, but still has some significant problems, especially with regard to standing.
The appeals court's unpublished order avoids some of the district court's errors, but still has some significant problems, especially with regard to standing.
On Good Friday, two district courts issued decisions on the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.
The plaintiff states lack standing to challenge the Biden Administration's interim Social Cost of Carbon estimates
And this lawsuit faces many of the same administrative law hurdles as does AHM v. FDA.
ADF's Erin Hawley responds to my post on the jurisdictional problems in AHM v. FDA and I reply.
While the US Supreme Court continues to require judges to defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of law in many situations, numerous states have abolished or severely curbed such deference. The results should temper both hopes and fears associated with ending judicial deference to agencies.
Another opinion exposing the Food and Drug Administration's vaping problem.
Somehow a district court has made erroneous rulings three times in one case, and still has not reached the merits.
There's been lots of heat, but very little light in coverage and commentary about the lawsuit seeking to revoke FDA approval of mifepristone.
Thoughts on recent oral argument exchanges on whether the Administrative Procedure Act contemplates (let alone requires) universal vacatur.
A Ninth Circuit opinion concludes that when a federal agency seeks a voluntary remand of a contested rule, that is not enough to vacate the regulation.
FTC Commissioner Christine WIlson is resigning from the Commission. (Updated)
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed questions on a range of questions at a recent Notre Dame symposium.
Another potential legal setback for the FDA's attempt to regulate electronic cigarettes as tobacco products.
A majority of judges concluded the plain language of the statute does not apply to bump stocks, but they also would have denied Chevron deference had they found the statute ambiguous.
Zion’s attempts to push out unwanted renters collides with Fourth Amendment protections.
The EPA and Army Corps have finalized a revised definition of "waters of the United States," which defines the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
A new opinion concludes Ohio courts need not defer to agency interpretations. The justices are not unanimous, but no justice writes in favor of deference.
A split U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied an en banc petition challenging the Federal Election Commission's failure to pursue claims against New Models.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The Solicitor General's brief defending how the CFPB is funded contradicts what the agency and others have said in the past.
The justices refuse to vacate the injunction against President Biden's student loan forgiveness policy, but accept certiorari.
Is the federal government giving up on statutory stare decisis?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagrees on whether the word "image" is ambiguous.
A rare, successful nondelegation challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The Biden Administration has reportedly asked for Commissioner Magnus's resignation, but he has refused to go.
A new proposed regulation may test the limits of the Executive Branch's authority to impose regulatory requirements on federal contractors.
Another appellate court recognizes that federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider legal challenges to the Biden Administration's Social Cost of Carbon estimates.
In the wake of West Virginia v. EPA, it seems that "major questions" can be found almost anywhere.
Noted environmental law scholar Richard Revesz will be nominated to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
The likelihood that the Supreme Court considers the FDA's treatment of vaping products is increasing.
Assessing an aggressive Fifth Circuit opinion declaring Securities & Exchange Commission proceedings unconstituional.
Regulators imposed the ban based on a highly implausible and counterintuitive reading of federal law.
My forthcoming article the good, the bad, and the likely implications of the Supreme Court's decision West Virginia v. EPA
The Court should assimilate the “major questions” doctrine of West Virginia v. EPA and its precedents—including Chevron and what came even before that—to an approach that asks whether Congress has made an actual delegation. Only this will serve the relevant separation-of-powers principle.
The major questions doctrine inverts the Chevron doctrine, is indeterminate, and, as a practical matter, will encourage courts to engage in something more akin to political punditry than law.
The Court did not engage with the doctrine directly (as opposed to simply creating an exception to it). How, in fact, would the case have been decided under Chevron?
A correct interpretation of the statute at issue—Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act—does not give the EPA the authority to issue the sort of regulations at issue in the case.
Deciding the case might have been squarable with Article III, but not the way Court went about it.
It may now require notice and comment to rescind final rules that were never published in the Federal Register.
My review of Reviving Rationality:Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health by Michael Livermore and Richard Revesz.
The Supreme Court is skeptical of agency efforts to pour new wine out of old bottles.
The Supreme Court proclaimed this term that the Lemon test had been abandoned. Is this what is in story for Chevron?
Something is wrong at the Food & Drug Administration's Center for Tobacco Products, and federal courts are beginning to notice.
What should courts do when an agency action is based upon scientific evidence within the agency's expertise, but also implicates heightened scrutiny?
In her forceful West Virginia v. EPA dissent, Justice Kagan challenges the majority's commitment to textualism.
Chief Justice Roberts final opinion of the term rejects the statutory challenge to the Biden Administration's rescission of the "Remain in Mexico" policy.
Chief Justice Roberts writes for a six-justice majority in West Virginia v. EPA.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10