November 21, 2014: SLF filed a response brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the EPA's assertion that it can continue to use greenhouse gas emissions standards that were successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014. In the blockbuster decision in which SLF represented dozens of challengers to the EPA rules, the Court held that EPA violated constitutional separation of powers by redrafting entire sections of the Clean Air Act unilaterally without Congressional authorization. Now, EPA asserts that those same standards should continue to be used, forcing millions of American citizens and businesses under an illegal permitting process. SLF and other parties are challenging the assertion, as the DC Court considers how best to implement the Supreme Court decision, which was handed down in June 2014.
November 14, 2014 - Southeastern Legal Foundation today filed a formal Public Comment in the EPA "Waters of the United States" proposed expansion of authority under the Clean Water Act. The Comments, which slam the unprecedented proposed expansion of authority for EPA over nearly every water and land space in the United States, point out that EPA does not have Congressional authorization to expand definitions written into law in the Clean Air Act - much like the successful U.S. Supreme Court arguments that EPA likewise overreached beyond executive authority in unconstitutionally re-writing portions of the Clean Air Act to attempt to achieve authority to govern greenhouse gas emissions in an overbroad way.
In the Clean Water Act proposed expansion, EPA would claim jurisdiction over floodplains, all wetlands - even those unconnected to other water tributaries - and other "ephemeral" wet areas, including small streams, thus rendering the Clean Water Act term "navigable waters" utterly meaningless. SLF further cites three (3) significant Supreme Court decisions that have turned back past EPA attempts to snatch jurisdiction over similar wetlands areas.
Oct. 16, 2014: The Southeastern Legal Foundation today filed a formal Public Comment in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's latest gambit to crush the American coal industry, the Obama administration's so-called "war on coal," and along with it, more than a million jobs, spikes in energy costs to consumers, and another example of the violation of Congressional intent and separation of powers.
The EPA's Proposed Rule, "Carbon Pollution Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units; Proposed Rule" 79 Fed. Reg. 34959 (June 18, 2014), proposes unilateral restrictions on coal and gas-fired electric generating facilities that are "out of bounds" and "well-beyond what Congress clearly intended in existing law," according to Shannon Goessling, SLF executive director and chief legal counsel. SLF won a decisive Supreme Court victory earlier this year challenging the EPA's "climate change" rules.
The currrent Public Comment period, much like it's "climate change" predecessor, will be the first round in administrative and legal challenges against the enactment of the Proposed Rule. "We are preparing our legal strategy under the assumption that the Obama administration's EPA will go ahead with the Proposed Rule despite the fact that they lost a similar effort in the Supreme Court earlier this year," said Goessling.
SLF's executive director and chief legal counsel, Shannon Goessling, assesses the long-term impact of the Supreme Court striking down the EPA re-write of the Clean Air Act - not the "victory" claimed by EPA and environmentalists, but a victory saving millions of Americans from greenhouse gas permitting by the EPA, July 6, 2014
June 23, 2014 - Supreme Court holds EPA "overreach, violates separation of powers" in five-year climate change case...!
The Supreme Court of the United States today held that the Obama Administration's EPA overstepped its authority by rewriting the Clean Air Act to fit its regulatory scheme on greenhouse gas emissions. The Court struck down the agency's broad assertion of power and held that the EPA must have Congressional authorization to rewrite the Clean Air Act.