No Password Required: USF Cybercrime Professor, Former Federal Agent, and Vintage Computer Archivist
Georgia on My Mind: On the Frontlines of Federal Rulemaking With AG Carr — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Small Refinery Exemption Litigation Update
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech Episode 5
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech Episode 4
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Look at the Current Challenge to Judicial Deference to Federal Agencies and What it Means for the Consumer Financial Services Industry, With Special Guest, Craig Green, Professor, Temple University
What to Expect in Chemicals Policy and Regulation and on Capitol Hill in 2023
H2-OWOW! – A Reflective Conversation with John Goodin, Former Director of EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds – Reflections on Water Podcast
Reflections on Sackett - Reflections on Water Podcast
PFAS in Focus: Wastewater Utility Perspectives From Jay Hoskins, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District - Reflections on Water Podcast
[Podcast] Keith Matthews and Chris Wozniak: Talking Ag Biotech
Environmental Agencies, Superfund Cleanups, and Managing Enforcement Actions
West Virginia vs. EPA Part II: U.S. Supreme Court Applies the Major Questions Doctrine to limit EPA Regulatory Authority
#WorkforceWednesday: Employers Respond to Dobbs, Implications of the Supreme Court's EPA Ruling, and Pay Increases for CA Health Care Workers - Employment Law This Week®
PFAS Regulatory Update: EPA Issues Updated Drinking Water Health Advisories
West Virginia vs. EPA: An Environmental Regulations Case with Broad Implications for Agency Power
Diving In: An Interview With Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water - Reflections on Water Podcast
McGirt Uncertainty Extends to Federal Environmental Regulations in Indian Country
EPA Plan Changes PFAS Outlook For Companies, Regulators
2BInformed: Understanding the EPA’s New PFAS Strategic Roadmap and Upcoming PBT Regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published on February 15th a final rule reaffirming its decision that it remains appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants (“HAP”) from power...more
The federal lawsuit filed by twenty-three states challenging EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) is in the 8th inning, and things are not looking good for the challengers. Some background is appropriate. ...more
In this eight-week alert series, we are providing a broad look at current and emerging issues facing the energy sector. Attorneys from across the firm will discuss issues ranging from environmental disclosures and risk...more
The Clean Power Plan (CPP) is without a doubt one of the most complex and controversial regulatory undertakings in the EPA’s history, so much so that it was challenged in court – twice – before it was even published in the...more
Late last week, EPA issued a Supplemental Finding, concluding that it is still “appropriate and necessary” to regulate hazardous air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired electric generating units. The Supplemental Finding was...more
In this edition of Seyfarth Shaw’s Energy Insights Newsletter our Energy and Clean Technologies team covers important developments in Q2 2015 for the energy industry including court protection for companies using hydraulic...more
Clean Water Rule Opens Litigation Floodgates - With much fanfare, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) recently issued a final rule clarifying which bodies of water are “waters of the United States” protected...more
On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court cast serious doubt upon the future of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) by finding that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) failed to adequately consider the costs of...more
Last week, in Michigan v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unreasonable for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to refuse to consider costs in connection with its finding that it was “appropriate and...more
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants if the agency determines that such “regulation is appropriate and necessary” after studying the hazards the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29th decision in Michigan v. EPA, taken together with another significant CAA opinion from last term, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, demonstrates the Court’s proclivity for subjecting...more
Environmental and Policy Focus - BP pays record $18.7 billion to settle claims in Gulf oil spill Bloomberg - Jul 2: BP Plc reached a record $18.7 billion agreement to settle all federal and state claims from the 2010...more
Delivering a sharp blow to President Obama’s efforts to regulate coal plants, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, finding that...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court halted further implementation of a U.S. EPA’s regulation limiting mercury and other hazardous air toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric power plants. In a 5-4 decision, the...more
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule ("MATS") for electric utility steam generating units has been reversed and remanded with the Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Michigan v. EPA on June 29, 2015. Writing for...more
On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered another warning to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against overstepping its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act. In Michigan v. Environmental Protection...more
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was wrong not to consider the cost of compliance when it decided to regulate mercury and other air toxic substances emitted from power...more
On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency invalidated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Toxic Air Standards (MATS) regulation by a 5 to 4 vote, finding that...more
A closely divided Supreme Court has determined that EPA must consider cost when regulating emissions of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has authority to regulate toxic emissions...more
The US Supreme Court held yesterday that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unreasonably failed to consider costs when it made the initial decision to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power...more
In Michigan v. EPA, the U. S. Supreme Court invalidated EPA’s rules limiting emissions of mercury and other pollutants from power plants, ruling that EPA inappropriately ignored the costs of regulation – particularly...more
In a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the EPA acted unreasonably when it refused to consider the cost of implementing its Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS). The MATS rule, issued in 2012,...more
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) improperly refused to consider costs when it decided to regulate mercury and other hazardous emissions. The EPA regulated power plant...more
The short answer is, yes, though the majority is more wrong. In fact, the issue in Michigan v. EPA seems so simple that the MATS rule could have been affirmed in a two-page opinion. Judge Scalia notes that the word...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Michigan v. EPA, reversing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and holding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider...more