Latest news with #AdministrativeProcedureActof1946
USA Today
23-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Environmental lawyers preparing for legal showdown over Trump energy deregulation
Environmental lawyers preparing for legal showdown over Trump energy deregulation April 22 (Reuters) - U.S. environmental groups say they are hiring lawyers and preparing for a major legal showdown with President Donald Trump's administration over its rapid-fire and sweeping efforts to sidestep federal regulations on oil, gas and coal development. The preparations will pose a test for the Trump administration's strategy since January of relying mainly on emergency authorities and executive orders to slash what it views as obstructions to a surge in fossil fuel energy production. In the last two weeks, Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to sunset every existing energy regulation by next year and, in a separate memorandum, said those agencies may repeal certain regulations without allowing the public to weigh in. Federal officials have also notified companies that they can seek exemptions to clean air regulations via email, exempted dozens of companies from mercury and air toxics limits, fast-tracked a controversial oil pipeline tunnel in the Great Lakes, and dispensed with a court-ordered environmental review of thousands of oil and gas leases on federal lands. More: President Trump signs executive orders aimed at reviving US coal industry Those actions test existing law, attorneys and policy experts said, including the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 that require agencies to publish notices of proposed and final regulations and allow the public to comment on them. "They really are kicking it into high gear now," Dan Goldbeck, director of regulatory policy at the conservative think tank American Action Forum, said in an interview. "They are trying to push some of these legal doctrines a bit to see if they can implement a new policy framework." Environmental group Earthjustice said it is hiring attorneys as it prepares to challenge some of Trump's moves. The organization has 10 lawyer positions currently posted and wants to increase that amount substantially this year, adding to its existing stable of around 200 lawyers, it said. Earthjustice and other groups say they want to be ready to sue once Trump's agencies begin to implement his directives, including his order to sunset all federal energy regulations. "President Trump's proposal is almost comically illegal," said Sambhav Sankar, Earthjustice senior vice president for programs. "If any federal agency actually tries doing this, we'll see them in court." More: EPA limits remain on 'forever chemicals' – for now. See what's in your drinking water. Waiting until the administration moves on Trump's orders is key, though, according to the groups. "We can't sue over the president's delusional thinking, but what we can do is sue when agencies try to implement that delusional thinking," said David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the potential for legal challenges from environmental groups. Last week, the Interior and Commerce Departments handed environmental lawyers a possible target when they proposed a rule that would allow agencies to permit projects that degrade the habitats of endangered species, EIP's Bookbinder said. "This is what, in some sense, we've been waiting for - not big pronouncements from the White House," he said. Challenging the two-year exemptions for coal-fired power plants from mercury and air toxics limits may prove harder, said Zach Pilchen, senior counsel at Holland & Knight, who served in both the first Trump and Biden administrations. Trump relied on a provision of the Clean Air Act passed by Congress in 1990 that enables the president to exempt certain sources for national security reasons or if mitigating technology is not available. "This is uncharted territory here," Pilchen told Reuters. "That provision has never been tested and it could be somewhat difficult to bring a challenge in court." He said that among other things, the Clean Air Act has a judicial review provision governing lawsuits over actions by the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, but it does not specifically mention actions by the president. Earthjustice's Sankar said his organization expects to have to challenge the administration's actions repeatedly over the coming years. He pointed to the government's resistance to a U.S. Supreme Court order that it facilitate the return of a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported and now being held in a notorious prison in El Salvador. "Normally in impact litigation, once you win a case, the government changes its behavior in other similar cases to comply with the precedent," said Sankar, adding that he did not expect the administration to follow precedent anymore. (Reporting by Nichola Groom in Los Angeles and Valerie Volcovici in Washington. Editing by Marguerita Choy)
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Environmental lawyers get ready to pounce on Trump's energy deregulation moves
By Nichola Groom and Valerie Volcovici (Reuters) -U.S. environmental groups say they are hiring lawyers and preparing for a major legal showdown with President Donald Trump's administration over its rapid-fire and sweeping efforts to sidestep federal regulations on oil, gas and coal development. The preparations will pose a test for the Trump administration's strategy since January of relying mainly on emergency authorities and executive orders to slash what it views as obstructions to a surge in fossil fuel energy production. In the last two weeks, Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to sunset every existing energy regulation by next year and, in a separate memorandum, said those agencies may repeal certain regulations without allowing the public to weigh in. Federal officials have also notified companies that they can seek exemptions to clean air regulations via email, exempted dozens of companies from mercury and air toxics limits, fast-tracked a controversial oil pipeline tunnel in the Great Lakes, and dispensed with a court-ordered environmental review of thousands of oil and gas leases on federal lands. Those actions test existing law, attorneys and policy experts said, including the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 that require agencies to publish notices of proposed and final regulations and allow the public to comment on them. "They really are kicking it into high gear now," Dan Goldbeck, director of regulatory policy at the conservative think tank American Action Forum, said in an interview. "They are trying to push some of these legal doctrines a bit to see if they can implement a new policy framework." Environmental group Earthjustice said it is hiring attorneys as it prepares to challenge some of Trump's moves. The organization has 10 lawyer positions currently posted and wants to increase that amount substantially this year, adding to its existing stable of around 200 lawyers, it said. Earthjustice and other groups say they want to be ready to sue once Trump's agencies begin to implement his directives, including his order to sunset all federal energy regulations. "President Trump's proposal is almost comically illegal," said Sambhav Sankar, Earthjustice senior vice president for programs. "If any federal agency actually tries doing this, we'll see them in court." Waiting until the administration moves on Trump's orders is key, though, according to the groups. "We can't sue over the president's delusional thinking, but what we can do is sue when agencies try to implement that delusional thinking," said David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the potential for legal challenges from environmental groups. Last week, the Interior and Commerce Departments handed environmental lawyers a possible target when they proposed a rule that would allow agencies to permit projects that degrade the habitats of endangered species, EIP's Bookbinder said. "This is what, in some sense, we've been waiting for - not big pronouncements from the White House," he said. Challenging the two-year exemptions for coal-fired power plants from mercury and air toxics limits may prove harder, said Zach Pilchen, senior counsel at Holland & Knight, who served in both the first Trump and Biden administrations. Trump relied on a provision of the Clean Air Act passed by Congress in 1990 that enables the president to exempt certain sources for national security reasons or if mitigating technology is not available. "This is uncharted territory here," Pilchen told Reuters. "That provision has never been tested and it could be somewhat difficult to bring a challenge in court." He said that among other things, the Clean Air Act has a judicial review provision governing lawsuits over actions by the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, but it does not specifically mention actions by the president. Earthjustice's Sankar said his organization expects to have to challenge the administration's actions repeatedly over the coming years. He pointed to the government's resistance to a U.S. Supreme Court order that it facilitate the return of a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported and now being held in a notorious prison in El Salvador. "Normally in impact litigation, once you win a case, the government changes its behavior in other similar cases to comply with the precedent," said Sankar, adding that he did not expect the administration to follow precedent anymore.
Reuters
22-04-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Environmental lawyers get ready to pounce on Trump's energy deregulation moves
Summary Administration moves to rapidly slash regulations through new executive orders EPA opens door to exemptions for air, water rules while formally undertakes deregulation process Environmental groups ready to launch legal defense of clean air, water rules April 22 (Reuters) - U.S. environmental groups say they are hiring lawyers and preparing for a major legal showdown with President Donald Trump's administration over its rapid-fire and sweeping efforts to sidestep federal regulations on oil, gas and coal development. The preparations will pose a test for the Trump administration's strategy since January of relying mainly on emergency authorities and executive orders to slash what it views as obstructions to a surge in fossil fuel energy production. In the last two weeks, Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to sunset every existing energy regulation by next year and, in a separate memorandum, said those agencies may repeal certain regulations without allowing the public to weigh in. Federal officials have also notified companies that they can seek exemptions to clean air regulations via email, exempted dozens of companies from mercury and air toxics limits, fast-tracked a controversial oil pipeline tunnel in the Great Lakes, and dispensed with a court-ordered environmental review of thousands of oil and gas leases on federal lands. Those actions test existing law, attorneys and policy experts said, including the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 that require agencies to publish notices of proposed and final regulations and allow the public to comment on them. "They really are kicking it into high gear now," Dan Goldbeck, director of regulatory policy at the conservative think tank American Action Forum, said in an interview. "They are trying to push some of these legal doctrines a bit to see if they can implement a new policy framework." Environmental group Earthjustice said it is hiring attorneys as it prepares to challenge some of Trump's moves. The organization has 10 lawyer positions currently posted and wants to increase that amount substantially this year, adding to its existing stable of around 200 lawyers, it said. Earthjustice and other groups say they want to be ready to sue once Trump's agencies begin to implement his directives, including his order to sunset all federal energy regulations. "President Trump's proposal is almost comically illegal," said Sambhav Sankar, Earthjustice senior vice president for programs. "If any federal agency actually tries doing this, we'll see them in court." Waiting until the administration moves on Trump's orders is key, though, according to the groups. "We can't sue over the president's delusional thinking, but what we can do is sue when agencies try to implement that delusional thinking," said David Bookbinder, director of law and policy at the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the potential for legal challenges from environmental groups. Last week, the Interior and Commerce Departments handed environmental lawyers a possible target when they proposed a rule that would allow agencies to permit projects that degrade the habitats of endangered species, EIP's Bookbinder said. "This is what, in some sense, we've been waiting for - not big pronouncements from the White House," he said. Challenging the two-year exemptions for coal-fired power plants from mercury and air toxics limits may prove harder, said Zach Pilchen, senior counsel at Holland & Knight, who served in both the first Trump and Biden administrations. Trump relied on a provision of the Clean Air Act passed by Congress in 1990 that enables the president to exempt certain sources for national security reasons or if mitigating technology is not available. "This is uncharted territory here," Pilchen told Reuters. "That provision has never been tested and it could be somewhat difficult to bring a challenge in court." He said that among other things, the Clean Air Act has a judicial review provision governing lawsuits over actions by the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, but it does not specifically mention actions by the president. Earthjustice's Sankar said his organization expects to have to challenge the administration's actions repeatedly over the coming years. He pointed to the government's resistance to a U.S. Supreme Court order that it facilitate the return of a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported and now being held in a notorious prison in El Salvador. "Normally in impact litigation, once you win a case, the government changes its behavior in other similar cases to comply with the precedent," said Sankar, adding that he did not expect the administration to follow precedent anymore.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Real Danger of Trump's War on Low-Flow Showerheads
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. The First Amendment guarantees the public's right to petition the federal government to address wrongs. That fundamental constitutional right helped motivate Congress to secure a role for the public to participate in the federal rulemaking process by submitting written comments on proposed regulations. But now, the Trump administration is threatening to undermine the public comment process like no prior administration has in 80 years. In the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, Congress required agencies—with only narrow exceptions—to give notice to the public of proposed regulations and provide 'interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments.' Since then, presidents of both parties have valued and promoted the public comment process. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan directed federal agencies to give 'full attention to public comments' to ensure that any 'factual conclusions upon which the rule is based have substantial support.' In 1993, President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 12,866—which remains in effect today—required agencies to afford a 'meaningful opportunity to comment' and specified that the period should usually last at least 60 days. And in 2011, President Barack Obama reaffirmed that 60-day comment periods were essential for the 'open exchange' of information and perspectives among experts, private stakeholders, and the general public. Public comments do more than satisfy the public's right to be heard by their government. The comment process is meant to inform agencies' decisions. As a 2024 report by the White House office that oversees regulatory analyses explains: 'Scientists and researchers may have access to data not otherwise available to agencies. Industries and advocacy groups may have important insights into a particular problem. And individuals may be able to draw on their lived experiences to offer valuable perspectives.' In other words, public comments can lead to more accountable agency decisionmaking, producing more effective and responsive rules. But that works only if agencies are open to receiving new data and alternative views. The Trump administration is increasingly making clear that it is not interested in hearing other viewpoints. The administration has repeatedly invoked questionable reasons to avoid public comments on regulatory proposals. In February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that any agency's actions on immigration and border control 'constitute a foreign affairs function … under the Administrative Procedure Act'—the unstated implication being to shoehorn a broad set of regulatory polices into a narrow statutory exemption to bypass public comment. Last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring that whenever an agency determines that an existing rule is 'facially unlawful,' it can repeal that rule 'without notice and comment'—a gross distortion of an exception meant to be reserved either for true emergencies or for the most uncontroversial regulatory moves. The same day, another executive order read like a royal proclamation, with Trump commanding an agency to repeal a particular water-efficiency rule and decreeing that 'notice and comment is unnecessary because I am ordering the repeal.' Even when the Trump administration has complied with the 80-year-old norm of providing public notice and comment, they have often afforded the bare minimum. In March, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a major overhaul of Obamacare eligibility, restricting coverage for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program recipients, shortening the enrollment period, and complicating the verification process for low-income applicants. By its own calculations, this rule will cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose coverage and will result in net costs of hundreds of millions of dollars per year to state governments and consumers. The amount of time given to the public to comment on these massive changes: just 24 days. (By contrast, the prior 2023 proposed rule covering DACA recipients allowed 59 days of comment, more than twice the length.) Similarly, a rule withdrawing all governmentwide guidance on preparing environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy Act allowed written comments for just 31 days, without any public hearings. In fact, that rule was issued as an 'interim final' action, meaning public comments were taken only after the withdrawal already went into effect. (By comparison, the most recent amendments to those rules, finalized in 2024, involved a 60-day comment period, four virtual public meetings, and two Tribal consultations.) The administration's disinterest in hearing from the public seemingly applies only to those with new or different ideas. Federal agencies are all ears when it comes to narrowly defined input that aligns with preestablished White House priorities. Even as the Trump administration has sought to curtail public input on rules on health care, immigration, and environmental protections, agencies have announced multiple new channels for the public to share additional ideas for deregulation. Like-minded proponents of deregulation can share support for cutting existing rules through numerous new channels: a new digital form on the portal; an Office of Management and Budget call for ideas on 'any and all regulations' to rescind; a call for direct messages on X to DOGE; messages to individual agencies as they implement DOGE's 'deregulatory agenda'; or a forthcoming process aimed at removing so-called anti-competitive regulatory barriers. But this radical receptivity to public input is reserved only for comments that fully embrace the administration's deregulatory agenda. Divergent viewpoints need not apply. There's a clear reason why the Trump administration is scared of receiving public comments that challenge its predetermined regulatory preferences. Courts require agencies to respond to significant points raised by public comments, to consider all important aspects of the regulatory issue, and to reasonably explain their ultimate choices. Like ostriches sticking their heads in the sand, officials in this administration seem to hope that by limiting comment opportunities, they can avoid responding to inconvenient facts and arguments. Minimizing or bypassing public comments allows agencies to speed up their deregulatory efforts and to claim they were not aware of defects with their proposals. Agencies are likely banking on some judges either not noticing or not caring. That's not how our regulatory process is meant to work. Public comments are essential to producing effective and accountable agency actions. The Trump administration's misguided and likely illegal attempts to restrict public comment opportunities will be challenged in the courts. Meanwhile, it remains the right and the responsibility of any stakeholder, expert, or member of the public with relevant data or a different viewpoint to submit public comments when they can. If comment periods continue to shrink and the small squadron of traditional public participants in the regulatory process lack the time to submit robust comments on their own, one solution is to expand the roster of commenters. Academic researchers of all disciplines, interest groups big and small, and individuals with lived experience should all do what they can in the limited time provided by agencies to submit comments and help build out the public rulemaking records against which agency decisions will be weighed. In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the public cannot allow their vital role in the rulemaking process to be silenced.
Bloomberg
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
‘Showerhead' Executive Order Hides a Serious Surprise
Donald Trump has issued a new executive order explicitly challenging the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) — the law most used by the federal courts to block his other unlawful executive actions. Disguised as a trivial order about (of all things) low-flow showerheads, it is, in reality, an invitation to the Supreme Court to gut the APA. That would be a disaster for the rule of law. The APA requires federal agency actions to be based on reasons and thus functions as the constitution of the modern administrative state.
