Kavanaugh, one of the most conservative judges on the D.C. Circuit Court, has authored opinions skeptical of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations many conservatives see as abuses of federal power.
The Supreme Court sided against the federal government in another wetlands case, which could make the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to extend its control over more bodies of water on private property even harder.
Antonin Scalia was a careful steward of the U.S. Constitution throughout his career. May he rest in peace. Through the Constitution the people tell their government "this far may you go, but no further." Justice Scalia worked to keep government within its lawful bounds during an era of dangerous executive overreach. Now what?
The Supreme Court blocked Obama's dirty "clean power plan." CFACT doesn't label EPA's energy regulations "dirty," lightly. "Dirty" is the right word for the trick they tried to pull.
Raisin growers Marvin and Laura Horne have challenged a 66-year-old USDA regulation that allows the government to seize up to half a grower's raisin crop for forced resale overseas at discounted prices. The stated purpose is to keep the domestic price for raisins artificially high, but the Hornes claim that the seizure of their crop amounts to an unconstitutional taking without adequate compensation - and now the case is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
CFAC advisor Larry Bell says that we ought to beware of marketing terms such as “clean,” “renewable,” and “sustainable.” While those words may seem very nice, they have routinely been co-opted and redefined through misleading “Green” messaging campaigns. For example, corn ethanol yields less energy than is required to grow and produce it. Wind turbines are bird and bat executioners. Solar plants take up so much land that reptiles and other animals suffer. Plus, solar and wind are inherently intermittent,
The Court served notice today that the Executive branch cannot unilaterally write its own laws. This is an important principle. However, the United States still remains fated to suffer most of the economic damage EPA's regulations will cause.
Michael Mann is suing The National Review, commentator Mark Steyn, and others, claiming their truthful reporting on his shenanigans in creating the false image of a hockey stick to purportedly show massive human influence on climate. According to Charles C. W. Cooke, writing in the current issue of National Review, Mann is assertying "a narrow form of libel that American law prohibits." Hopefully, the Court will agree.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CFACT to Supreme Court -- EPA emissions rules violate Constitution's separation of powers They are harmful, arbitrary, capricious and fraudulent. Read the brief.
The EPA is a regulatory agency that appears to be consumed by its own lust for increased political power. Take the EPA demand that New York City replace 1,300 fire hydrants because of their lead content. Or their declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant equivalent to sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Or their mercury and air toxics rule, that seeks to purge a portion of the 0.5% of atmospheric mercury and in the process shut down nearly half of the nation's electric power generation.
Presumably, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider EPA's Timing Rule, which regulates stationary sources of greenhouse gases, because EPA then promulated its Tailoring Rule, under which by its own (quite possibly unlawful) authority EPA limited the Timing Rule's purview to large stationary sources and thus made greenhouse gases a different class of criteria pollutant than the ones initially regulated under the Clean Air Act. But what if the Court upholds the Timing Rule and strikes the Tailoring Rule? Would the nation stand for an EPA with an extra 230,000 soldiers in its army?
Will the Supreme Court apply the constitutional brakes to EPA's emissions regulations while there's still an economy left to regulate?
Dealing an unexpected blow to power-hungry local officials accustomed to running roughshod over landowners, the U.S. Supreme Court June 25 ruled in favor of property rights and against government abuse of the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause. The 5-to-4 ruling marks the culmination of a nearly two-decade-old case involving a Florida developer and a local water management agency.
By Dr. Jeff EdgensProperty rights in America are sinking to the bottom of a regulatory swamp. The biggest threat to property rights is unchallenged bureaucratic decisions that command property owners to do the bidding of the EPA while not allowing those citizens the opportunity to be heard. One couple caught in this legal quagmire is Mike and Chantell Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, where they bought property in 2008 to build the home of their dreams. They secured all of the necessary permits and began work to fill the land and to prepare the site for the construction of their lake [...]
In one of the most closely watched wetlands cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in decades, Mike and Chantell Sackett are facing off against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over whether the couple has been denied due process by the agency. The Sacketts’ efforts to build a home in a residential neighborhood near Bonners Ferry, Idaho have been thwarted by EPA, which demands the couple apply for a federal wetlands-development permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA).The half-acre lot the Sacketts purchased for their home in 2007 is located near, but not adjacent to, picturesque Priest Lake in northern [...]