The physical invasion of the raisin snatchers — a property rights victory at the Supreme Court In a week marked by several major Supreme Court decisions that were quite disappointing to advocates of limited government and the rule of law, there was one … Continue reading
School choice — good result in Florida A Florida trial court a dismissed a union-led lawsuit, Mcall v. Scott, challenging the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program. The Florida Legislature created the Tax Credit Scholarship Program in 2001, which gives dollar-for-dollar tax credits for … Continue reading
On Wednesday, May 20, 2015, I testified before a senate subcommittee seeking to make EPA’s Science Advisory Board more transparent, effective, and fair. The senate bill at issue, S. 543, is being proffered in response to criticism that EPA is not using the Board properly to provide peer review of the scientific bases of its regulatory proposals. My testimony criticized EPA’s failure to send proposed regulations governing carbon dioxide emissions to the Board for expert analysis before finalizing the rules. Carbon dioxide is a natural substance that is everywhere and in everything. By regulating that ubiquitous substance, EPA gives itself the potential authority to regulate virtually everything, everywhere. That is an unprecedented reach for power by a federal administrative agency. Accordingly, if anything merits peer review from the top scientific experts, it is the scientific analysis forming the foundation of EPA’s carbon dioxide regulatory proposals. For more details, see my written and oral (time stamp 41) testimony.
UPDATE: View Ted Hadzi-Antich’s testimony on EPA accountabiliy during a hearing entitled, “Oversight of Scientific Advisory Panels and Processes at the Environmental Protection Agency.” The panel discussion begins on May 20th, at 9:30 AM EDT.
I’ve been invited to testify next week before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight) regarding ways in which EPA is violating the statutory requirement to obtain peer review of regulatory proposals from the Science Advisory Board.
In 2009, when EPA issued its first regulation governing greenhouse gas emissions, it failed to submit the regulatory proposal to the Board. Several subsequent greenhouse gas emissions standards went down the same wrong path. Those EPA failures to obtain peer review of the science underlying the greenhouse gas regulations were bald statutory violations, so PLF sued EPA to enforce the peer review requirements. Look here for more information regarding our challenge to the greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars, and here for trucks, It looks like Congress is paying attention to these case.
Tort reform in Washington State — the virtues of at-will employment We filed this amicus brief in Rickman v. Premera Blue Cross in the Washington Supreme Court. While working for Premera, Ericka Rickman was fired for nepotism, because she allegedly favored … Continue reading
United States Supreme Court — awaiting orders in three of our cases We’re hoping for good news on Monday when the Court is set to issue orders in three of our cases: Stewart & Jasper Orchards v. Jewell (whether the … Continue reading
Today, CBN News posted an interview with PLF attorney Ted Hadzi-Antich on the EPA’s regulation of CO2 (carbon dioxide) as a “pollutant” under the Clean Water Act. PLF’s lawsuit challenging the ruling focuses on the EPA’s refusal to submit the … Continue reading
Author: Ted Hadzi-Antich EPA has done it again. It has failed to send yet another greenhouse gas regulation for review to it's own blue ribbon panel of experts known as the Science Advisory Board (SAB). This time, it's the light duty … Continue reading