Search The Site
Additional Material to Download

Surface Temp Records: Deception? Download Here

Climategate: Caught Green-Handed Download Here

Climate Challenges Download Here

SLF EPA Public Comment Filing Download Here

United States Economic Impact from the Lieberman-Warner Proposed Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Download Here

Additional Material to Download

Obama's Climate "Plan B" in Hot Water Download Here

Lord Monckton, Congress May 2010 Download Here

Avoiding Carbon Myopia 4-6-10 Download Here

Carbon Myopia Talk Slides 4-14-10 Download Here

NASA Data More Flawed 3-30-10 Download Here

Surface Temp Records: Deception? Download Here

Climategate: Caught Green-Handed Download Here

Scientific America's Climate Lies Download Here

Climate Challenges Download Here

Climate Audit:  Methods Abandoned by EPA, IPCC Download Here

Additional Material to Download

Lord Monckton, Congress May 2010 Download Here

Pachauri and the IPCC, No Fossil Fool Report 4-25-10 Download Here

Avoiding Carbon Myopia 4-6-10 Download Here

Carbon Myopia Talk Slides 4-14-10 Download Here

NASA Data More Flawed 3-30-10 Download Here

Climategate: Caught Green-Handed Download Here

Climategate Disclosures – IP Report Download Here

Global Warming: Australian Viewpoint Download Here

Scientific America's Climate Lies Download Here

Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable? Download Here

Louisiana Climate Change Download Here

United States Economic Impact from the Lieberman-Warner Proposed Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Download Here

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming Download Here

Climate Audit:  Methods Abandoned by EPA, IPCC Download Here

Tuesday
Jun022015

Appeals Court Orders EPA to Respond: Greenhouse Gas Rules Not Settled

June 1, 2015:   The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia today ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to file a response within 15 days to the Petition filed last week by Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) and various parties for Rehearing En Banc seeking reconsideration of the court’s decision on remand from the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the EPA’s greenhouse gas rules were “defective.”  Utility Air Regulatory Group, et al. v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).

The Court of Appeals ordered, “Upon consideration of petitioners’ petition for rehearing en banc filed in the above-captioned cases, it is ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that, within 15 days of the date of this order, respondent EPA file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc, not to exceed 15 pages. Absent further order of the court, the court will not accept a reply to the response.”  Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 09-1322, 10-1073, 10-1092.

Today’s order mirrors a similar order in the greenhouse gas case ruled on last year by the Supreme Court – that the EPA should respond to ensure the Court of Appeals has a complete record to consider.

Click here for Court Order

Thursday
May282015

SLF Files Petition for Rehearing in DC Court of Appeals: EPA Rules "Defective," Says Supreme Court

May 27, 2015:    Southeastern Legal Foundation today filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking reconsideration of its decision following the U.S. Supreme Court blockbuster decision holding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greenhouse gas rules were defective for substantive reasons.  Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc., et al. v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322, 10-1073, 10-1092.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision is Utility Air Regulatory Group, et al. v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). 

On remand from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia later remanded the greenhouse gas rules back to EPA without vacating the rules, instructing EPA to “consider whether any further revisions to its regulations are appropriate in light of [the Supreme Court decision].”

The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc., Southeastern Legal Foundation, Landmark Legal Foundation, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute joined in the petition.

The Supreme Court’s 2014 decision on EPA’s greenhouse gas rules is clear – the rules are substantively defective under the Clean Air Act.

The exceptional importance of the EPA’s rules and the strong decision by the Supreme Court in this matter require more than permission from the Court to EPA to change the rules if it sees fit.  The amended judgment also runs counter to case precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that requires that remanded cases secure and maintain uniformity with the Supreme Court decisions.  That clearly has not happened here.

Wednesday
Feb112015

EPA Plays 'Hide the Ball': SLF Files FOIA Lawsuit in Federal Court

Click here for statement and complaint as filed, Feb. 10, 2015.

Monday
Dec152014

SLF Back in U.S. Court of Appeals on EPA Air Quality Final Order

Brief - U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia - SLF filed amicus brief with Intervenor San Miguel Electric Cooperative, Inc. on Petition for Review of Final Order of the U.S. EPA, challenging the EPA's arbitrary and capricious Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) as a threat to the integrity of the U.S. power grid, 12-14-14 Download Here

Friday
Nov212014

SLF Challenges EPA: Cannot Use Standards Thrown Out By Supreme Court!

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.

Click here for SLF's Response Brief