![]() But even if including this revised definition of carbon dioxide doesn’t overturn a Supreme Court decision, it might herald the overturning of a school of thought among liberals on how to confront the court, and signal that Democratic legislators intend to apply some more strategic thinking to the challenges posed by the court’s conservative majority.Ĭruz’s statement was a moment when the mask slipped. EPA still stands, and its larger implications should remain a cause for worry. The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. So the way the IRA defines carbon dioxide in this explicit fashion, in the Times ’ telling, is a defense against these judicial dark arts.īut as Aronoff explained, the mere existence of this language in the bill’s text doesn’t actually repeal anything. To that end, it has demonstrated a propensity for disallowing executive branch agencies from having the broadest possible latitude in interpreting the legislative branch’s instructions. EPA decision, at least according to the Times’ Lisa Friedman.Īs we’ve noted on these pages before, the high court’s conservative bloc has recently ramped up its war against the administrative state. Running through the legislative text is language that “define the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an ‘air pollutant.’” The detail may seem minor, but its inclusion could be a “game changer,” designed “specifically to address the Supreme Court’s justification for reining in the EPA” in last term’s West Virginia v. ![]() “Did the Inflation Reduction Act quietly save the administrative state?” That’s the big question that TNR’s Kate Aronoff took up this week after The New York Times and others reported on an eye-catching bit of fine print in the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |