On June 30th, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), limiting the EPAs ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond its direct impact on climate policy, the case significantly impacts administrative power by supercharging a new legal regime - the “major questions doctrine.” Environmental law and administrative law expert, Professor Lisa Heinzerling (Georgetown Law Center) unpacks the Court’s decision in WV v. EPA and explains the broad powers of the judicial doctrine.
Prof. Heinzerling goes on to explain how major questions may prove to be the death knell for a prior test known as “Chevron deference.” Where Chevron assured judicial restraint toward federal policy, major questions now threatens to stymie agency action on some of the most critical and contentious issues of the moment, from climate change policy and far beyond.
AZ: General : 1.0
CA: General : 1.0
CT: General : 1.0
IL: General : 1.0
NY: Areas of Professional Practice : 1.0
(newly-admitted & experienced attorneys)
On June 30th, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), limiting the EPAs ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond its direct impact on climate policy, the case significantly impacts administrative power by supercharging a new legal regime - the “major questions doctrine.” Environmental law and administrative law expert, Professor Lisa Heinzerling (Georgetown Law Center) unpacks the Court’s decision in WV v. EPA and explains the broad powers of the judicial doctrine.
Prof. Heinzerling goes on to explain how major questions may prove to be the death knell for a prior test known as “Chevron deference.” Where Chevron assured judicial restraint toward federal policy, major questions now threatens to stymie agency action on some of the most critical and contentious issues of the moment, from climate change policy and far beyond.
AZ: General : 1.0
CA: General : 1.0
CT: General : 1.0
IL: General : 1.0
NY: Areas of Professional Practice : 1.0
(newly-admitted & experienced attorneys)
Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984): In a case involving the definition of a “stationary source” and its regulation, the Supreme Court sided with the EPA, deferring to the agency’s reading and in the process created the Chevron doctrine.
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (2000): The Supreme Court ruled that the FDA did not have the power to regulate tobacco under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act as Congress had not given the FDA explicit authority to do so.
King v. Burwell (2015): The Supreme Court ruled that the Internal Revenue Service did not overstep when it created a regulation extending tax credits authorized by the Affordable Care Act to federal exchanges. The majority determined that Congress intended for the tax credits to be available for both the state and federal exchanges.
Sackett v. EPA: The Supreme Court will hear this case in Fall 2022. The case concerns the EPAs authority to regulate wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
If you will be requesting a certificate, you must save this six-digit Certificate Code and enter it following the video. You will NOT be able to receive credit unless this is correctly entered once you have completed the course. In case you don't write it down, we'll email you the code for your convenience.
Confirmation Code: 66555
If you are not requesting credit, you may ignore this Confirmation Code. Enjoy the rest of the Video.