Guide to the Discussion Boards

Here’s a quick guide to all of our posts analyzing the Court’s decisions in Mass v. EPA and Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy in case you missed anything.

Professor Jonathan Adler led off the Mass v. EPA discussion here, wondering if the decision was “SCRAP for a new generation.” David Rivkin then weighed in, stating his belief that “the bottom line impact of Massachusetts is likely to be quite limited.” Mark Moller of the Cato Institute also agreed with this view, stating here that Court didn’t really set a “high bar” for the EPA going forward. Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation added his thoughts on Justice Roberts’ dissent here.

Many on the other side of the issue then added their voices to the debate, as Timothy Dowling of the Community Rights Council warned: “Don’t be fooled. It is a momentous decision.” And Gary Feinerman, the Solicitor General of Illinois (which was one of the 12 petitioning states in the case), predicted here that the Court’s holding on the issue of standing, “could portend a more active role for States in attempting to drive the regulatory agenda at the national level.” Dowling later authored another post, this time discussing standing, stating that the dissent responds to the majority’s claims “with a series of omissions and straw men.” Mark Moller also came in again tonight, as he wonders here if it were “possible to read the decision as a collateral casualty of the President’s aggressive and unrelenting efforts to bolster the power of the Office of the President.”

In the Duke Energy case, David Rivkin posted his thoughts here, claiming that the Court “suggested that it might be inclined to uphold the legality of the Bush Administration’s NSR reforms.” In a response here, Sean Donahue, who argued the case for the petitioners, responds by admitting that the decision “may not, by itself, sound the death knell for the Bush Administration’s efforts to ‘reform,'” while failing to see how “yesterday’s decision in any way supports those efforts.”