A California Supreme Court decision freezing enrollment at the state's flagship university is focusing the public's fury on the normally obscure, but incredibly consequential, California Environmental Quality Act.
For years, immigration restrictionists have borrowed arguments from the environmentalist fringe to make their case against allowing immigration to developed nations.
Good intentions, bad results
Liberal Berkeley officials might be coming around to the view held by conservative business leaders, who have long argued that California's Environmental Quality Act needs an overhaul.
At today's oral argument, the justices explored Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the major questions doctrine, justiciability and the regulation of advertising for four-foot cigars smoked through hookahs.
Insofar as the Court was concerned about pretext, it may be more difficult for the EPA to reduce greenhouse gases using regulatory authority to control emissions.
The Sacketts get a return trip to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Biden Administration is not pushing an expansive interpretation of federal regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
A surprising grant of certiorari places a high-stakes regulatory case on the Court's docket, with profound implications for EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Nuisance claims may not be a particularly effective way to address the problem of climate change, but federal law does not preempt state common law nuisance claims seeking compensatory damages.
A state court has apparently placed a cap on UC Berkeley enrollment increases due to inadequate environmental review.
Without attention to the onerous permitting process for offshore wind and other energy projects, efforts will be plagued by costly delays.
Court finds that a Canton, Michigan ordinance requiring mitigation for tree removal constitutes an uncompensated taking.
Demand Justice's Balls and Strikes provides more heat than light.
Some environmentalists seem to care more about triggering endangered species regulation than endangered species conservation.
Governments should not design laws and regulations to frustrate judicial review.
The D.C. Circuit rejected the Trump Administration's approach to regulating power plant emissions of greenhouse gases. Some states and industry groups want the Supreme Court to take a look.
And, within those policies deemed "carbon pricing," a carbon tax is preferable to cap-and-trade.
The Army Corps and EPA were happy to have the Trump Administration rule remanded, as they are working on a more expansive replacement that will itself face legal challenge.
A string of adverse court decisions will stop the University of California Board of Regents from adding more students to its Berkeley campus and adding more hospital beds to its medical center in San Francisco
Federal environmental laws and restrictions on tolling are adding years to the rollout of New York’s congestion pricing program.
The West needs markets in water, not allocations based on political considerations.
A judge's concurring opinion suggests that CEQ might not have the authority that some think it does.
Lawmakers want to pay cities to help cannabis businesses navigate the state’s oppressive bureaucracy.
Citizens and companies increasingly cannot count on the stability of the law when making decisions about their lives and businesses.
A new paper suggests that pollution (and prevailing winds) may be part of the answer.
Adapting to Climate Change: Economic and Legal Perspectives featuring Matthew Kahn and Robin Craig
The Jones Act shields the American shipping industry from foreign competition and harms both the environment and disadvantaged communities.
An environmental law keeps public agencies from reducing wildfire fuel.
An examination of how reconceiving animal rights might aid wildlife conservation
The lawsuit argues a 2,100-page environmental impact report for a major expansion of the University of California, San Francisco's Parnassus campus wasn't thorough enough.
The lawsuit from three Orange County preservation groups argues that supposedly historic buildings should be afforded the same environmental protections as "air, water, and forests."
The Supreme Court decides a decent number of environmental cases, but does not seem particularly interested in environmental concerns.