Posters

Steve Barnett
Michele Tantalla

Disclaimer

This weblog contains no legal advice or opinion. Do not rely on this weblog for any reason. If you need legal advice, consult with a lawyer. This weblog is not a solicitation or offer to provide legal services. It is a resource for Connell Folely LLP and may be used for educational, entertainment and/or communication purposes. The information, references, and links in this weblog may not be accurate and/or current. This weblog does not reflect the opinions of Connell Foley LLP. All original material in this weblog are the intellectual property and copyright of Connell Foley LLP, and non-original materials in this weblog may be subject to copyrights of others. You may quote, cite or link to original material in this weblog, provided that you credit this weblog and such permission may be withdrawn at any time by Connell Foley LLP in its sole discretion.

Search


Advanced Search

Monthly Archives

Most recent entries

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

New Jersey Appellate Division overrules NJDEP’s denial of a hearing request

Click here for the opinion.

Posted by Steve Barnett on 04/11 at 11:57 PM
Permalink

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Supreme Court rules against Bush Administration on Global Warming Greenhouse Gases

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the United States Supreme Court ruled that USEPA does have authority to regulate greenhouse gases and, further, that EPA has not reasonably explained why EPA has refused to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.  EPA had argued that the Clean Air Act and other statutes do not authorize EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, specifically automobile emissions.  Among EPA’s arguments was that Congress assigned he Department of Transportation to regulate vehicle gas mileage standards, not EPA.  EPA also argued that any regulation by EPA in the US would have no effect on global warming given the expected increases in greenhouse gases from other countries such as China.  The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision held that EPA does have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and that EPA’s failure to reasonably explain why it has not initiated rulemaking is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.  See the majority and dissenting opinions HERE.

Posted by Steve Barnett on 04/03 at 11:55 PM
Permalink


Copyright Connell Foley LLP 2007

Powered by ExpressionEngine






Links to Resources