This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
New York maintains that the terms of the compact provide that only Congress can repeal it and that, insofar as the compact represents a federal statute, its breach violates federal law. In earlier litigation, the Waterfront Commission sued the New Jersey governor to prevent him from enforcing the law. However, the U.S.
But in the years since then, it became one of the most important rulings on federal administrativelaw, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times. Going forward, judges will be charged with interpreting the law faithfully, impartially, and independently, without deference to the government.
In an article published in 2014, law professor Thomas Merrill suggested that the Chevron decision was not regarded as a particularly consequential one when it was issued. But in the decades since then, it became one of the most significant rulings on federal administrativelaw, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times.
climate litigation database documents two facial challenges to the first Trump administrations EO 13771. Trump asserted the following causes of action: Violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Climate Litigation Database. The Sabin Centers U.S. Trump and California v. Whether they will remains to be seen.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati. and non-U.S. HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE CASE CHART SINCE UPDATE # 147.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content