Item Link: Access the Resource
Date of Publication: June 10, 2019
Author(s): Jennifer Hijazi
Newspaper: E&E News
The Trump administration has failed to successfully defend any climate-related regulatory rollbacks before the courts during the president’s time in office thus far, according to a new report from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.
The report reviewed 159 cases filed between 2017 and 2018 “that raise climate change as an issue of fact or law.”
They were culled from a database of more than 200 litigation matters tracked through a partnership between the Sabin Center and law firm Arnold & Porter LLP.
The paper, authored by climate law fellow Dena Adler, sorted the lawsuits into five categories: four involving “pro” cases, in which a win for the parties that brought the suit would advance climate action; and one category of “con” cases, in which a win would undermine climate action.
The “pro” cases outweigh the “cons” 81% to 19%.
The cases’ subjects ranged from fossil fuel infrastructure to land and wildlife issues, though the volume of cases in each area isn’t necessarily a read on whether they had a greater impact on policy over others.
Transportation and power plant emissions, for example, made up a smaller category but could represent a more substantial impact on policy.
The cases’ subjects ranged from fossil fuel infrastructure to land and wildlife issues, though the volume of cases in each area isn’t necessarily a read on whether they had a greater impact on policy over others.
Transportation and power plant emissions, for example, made up a smaller category but could represent a more substantial impact on policy.
In 2017 and 2018, challengers filed 12 cases challenging Trump administration efforts to delay or roll back climate protections. Five of those resulted in a ruling against Trump, and five pressured the government to end the delay in question and were then dismissed or allowed to lapse. The rest are pending.
The courts have also halted some of the Trump administration’s efforts to increase fossil fuel development without adequate environmental review.
Read the complete article here.
The views and opinions expressed through the MAHB Website are those of the contributing authors and do not necessarily reflect an official position of the MAHB. The MAHB aims to share a range of perspectives and welcomes the discussions that they prompt.