By: Marc Z. Goldgrub, Cleantech Law Partners
According
to Harvard Environmental Law Professor Richard Lazarus, President Obama’s
Supreme Court pick, Federal Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland, is highly
respected in the environmental law community, and likely to give the
Environmental Protection Agency’s recently-stayed
Clean Power Plan rule “a fair hearing” if confirmed. UCLA Environmental Law
Professor Ann Carlson even calls him “a
good bet” to uphold the rule.
Carlson
and SCOTUSblog contributor Tom Goldstein note that while conservative-minded on
some issues, and widely considered a centrist, Garland’s environmental case
judgments tend to favor
EPA agency deference in cases of industry challenge. In fact, Garland generally
leans in favor of agency deference, though he is most
willing to stray from this in cases of environmental groups challenging
agency action. For example, in American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA (2009),
he rejected the EPA’s judgment on a rule regarding particulate matter standards
because the science suggested the rule’s standards could harm public health.
In the Clean Power Plan case, and other
likely EPA climate rule challenges under a future Clinton or Sanders
administration, an additional Justice on the Supreme Court favorably disposed
to agency deference increases the rules’ chances of survival. A Democratic
administration would in turn find itself with greater leeway to act on climate
through EPA rulemaking.
A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard
Law School, Garland served as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Federal Court of
Appeals for 16 years before being named its Chief Judge in 2013. Considering his
impeccable resume and lack of ideological bent, commentators
point to Garland’s nomination as a shrewd move by Obama to embarrass
Republicans opposed to confirming any Supreme Court pick until after the
next election. Garland’s nomination also forces Republicans to assess the risk
of accepting a practical moderate now, versus being forced to accept a more
ideological leftist nominee if the next President is a Democrat.
The article says "Considering his impeccable resume and lack of ideological bent" after describing that he usually supports EPA and shows EPA Agency deference and would be favorable for a Democratic administration. Does anyone else see a contradiction there?
ReplyDelete