Latest news with #Arnold&Porter
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court hands big win to fossil fuels, agency power
The Supreme Court this week reshaped how the federal government thinks about fossil fuel infrastructure. While environmental groups frequently describe projects ranging from coal mines to pipelines as 'carbon bombs,' the high court says that may not be the case — finding the projects themselves are not responsible for the upstream or downstream pollution for fuel or other products they simply transport or produce. The high court narrowed the scope of environmental reviews taken by agencies when they determine whether to approve an infrastructure project — and the grounds upon which such reviews can be challenged. The 8-0 ruling is a blow to those fighting to protect the environment and a win for developers and fossil fuel companies, making it more difficult to challenge a project on its climate or environmental grounds, or even to get information about its environmental impacts. 'It is going to grease the wheels for … fossil energy approvals,' said Travis Annatoyn, who was an attorney at the Interior Department during the Biden administration. 'I think it's going to make a difference,' added Annatoyn, who is now with the law firm Arnold & Porter. 'You will see courts take a more hands-off approach to reviewing technical analysis.' Frequently, opponents of projects approved by the federal government sue to get them overturned, arguing that the analysis underlying their approval was insufficient under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). But the justices on Thursday determined that government agencies do not need to consider a project's upstream or downstream impacts, that courts should defer to an agency's judgment about where to draw the line when considering a project's indirect impacts and that courts cannot block agency projects based on the outcome of a potential future project. What that means in practice is that a court cannot rule that an agency's environmental analysis is insufficient because it did not consider whether it will spur more emissions or pollution when fossil fuels are burned. Many energy trade groups and their Republican allies cheered the decision. In a written statement, Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito ( said that the ruling would allow the U.S. to 'move important infrastructure initiatives like pipelines, roads, and energy development swiftly to completion to benefit the communities they serve.' Nathaniel Shoaff, senior attorney at the Sierra Club, said that the ruling means that many emissions impacts will never actually get counted. He gave the example of mining coal on federal lands, saying the vast majority of the coal's climate impacts may never come to light since there's unlikely to be a downstream assessment. 'There is no ongoing NEPA review that I'm aware of at coal fired power plants. If you want to know about the climate impacts of mining coal, the only place to find out about it is during the NEPA process,' Shoaff said. He also noted that this process may shut down access to information for nearby communities. 'This decision is to allow a project to go forward that adds pollution to the air in Black and Brown communities in Louisiana and Texas, and it allows the federal government that's making that decision to stick its head in the sand and ignore those pollution impacts,' Shoaff said, referring to the underlying case the decision comes from, which concerns an oil railway that would make it easier to get oil from Utah to the Gulf Coast. 'People have a right to know when the government's making a decision that's going to impact their lives,' he said. 'It is critical that people understand what impacts the federal government has on their daily lives, and if you give them better information, they will make better choices about who to put in office. My hope is that if you give the federal decision makers better information, they would make better choices,' he added. The ruling comes against the backdrop of an administration that is not eager to consider climate change in its decision making. President Trump has frequently described climate change as a 'hoax' and has downplayed its destructive impacts. His Energy Department recently indicated that it considers environmental impacts of gas export terminals to be outside of its authority, and his Interior Department recently said it planned to dramatically shorten the timeline for environmental reviews of coal, oil and gas projects. Varu Chilakamarri, a former Justice Department lawyer, told The Hill that not only will the ruling likely result in faster approvals, it may also lead to more projects as companies see a smaller chance of getting their permits revoked in court. Chilakamarri said the ruling will give companies 'more comfort that, when an agency makes a decision, that decision will be, given more respect by the courts… even if there is a procedural, error or a lack of explanation by the agency what the court said was that that shouldn't, on its own, allow a court to just vacate the entire authorization.' 'That, in itself, will give companies some comfort they can pursue these processes … that they're not going to have their like permits yanked out from under them,' added Chilakamarri, who is now with the law firm K&L Gates. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Supreme Court hands big win to fossil fuels, agency power
The Supreme Court this week reshaped how the federal government thinks about fossil fuel infrastructure. While environmental groups frequently describe projects ranging from coal mines to pipelines as 'carbon bombs,' the high court says that may not be the case — finding the projects themselves are not responsible for the upstream or downstream pollution for fuel or other products they simply transport or produce. The high court narrowed the scope of environmental reviews taken by agencies when they determine whether to approve an infrastructure project — and the grounds upon which such reviews can be challenged. The 8-0 ruling is a blow to those fighting to protect the environment and a win for developers and fossil fuel companies, making it more difficult to challenge a project on its climate or environmental grounds, or even to get information about its environmental impacts. 'It is going to grease the wheels for … fossil energy approvals,' said Travis Annatoyn, who was an attorney at the Interior Department during the Biden administration. 'I think it's going to make a difference,' added Annatoyn, who is now with the law firm Arnold & Porter. 'You will see courts take a more hands-off approach to reviewing technical analysis.' Frequently, opponents of projects approved by the federal government sue to get them overturned, arguing that the analysis underlying their approval was insufficient under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). But the justices on Thursday determined that government agencies do not need to consider a project's upstream or downstream impacts, that courts should defer to an agency's judgment about where to draw the line when considering a project's indirect impacts and that courts cannot block agency projects based on the outcome of a potential future project. What that means in practice is that a court cannot rule that an agency's environmental analysis is insufficient because it did not consider whether it will spur more emissions or pollution when fossil fuels are burned. Many energy trade groups and their Republican allies cheered the decision. In a written statement, Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito ( said that the ruling would allow the U.S. to 'move important infrastructure initiatives like pipelines, roads, and energy development swiftly to completion to benefit the communities they serve.' Nathaniel Shoaff, senior attorney at the Sierra Club, said that the ruling means that many emissions impacts will never actually get counted. He gave the example of mining coal on federal lands, saying the vast majority of the coal's climate impacts may never come to light since there's unlikely to be a downstream assessment. 'There is no ongoing NEPA review that I'm aware of at coal fired power plants. If you want to know about the climate impacts of mining coal, the only place to find out about it is during the NEPA process,' Shoaff said. He also noted that this process may shut down access to information for nearby communities. 'This decision is to allow a project to go forward that adds pollution to the air in Black and Brown communities in Louisiana and Texas, and it allows the federal government that's making that decision to stick its head in the sand and ignore those pollution impacts,' Shoaff said, referring to the underlying case the decision comes from, which concerns an oil railway that would make it easier to get oil from Utah to the Gulf Coast. 'People have a right to know when the government's making a decision that's going to impact their lives,' he said. 'It is critical that people understand what impacts the federal government has on their daily lives, and if you give them better information, they will make better choices about who to put in office. My hope is that if you give the federal decision makers better information, they would make better choices,' he added. The ruling comes against the backdrop of an administration that is not eager to consider climate change in its decision making. President Trump has frequently described climate change as a 'hoax' and has downplayed its destructive impacts. His Energy Department recently indicated that it considers environmental impacts of gas export terminals to be outside of its authority, and his Interior Department recently said it planned to dramatically shorten the timeline for environmental reviews of coal, oil and gas projects. Varu Chilakamarri, a former Justice Department lawyer, told The Hill that not only will the ruling likely result in faster approvals, it may also lead to more projects as companies see a smaller chance of getting their permits revoked in court. Chilakamarri said the ruling will give companies 'more comfort that, when an agency makes a decision, that decision will be, given more respect by the courts… even if there is a procedural, error or a lack of explanation by the agency what the court said was that that shouldn't, on its own, allow a court to just vacate the entire authorization.' 'That, in itself, will give companies some comfort they can pursue these processes … that they're not going to have their like permits yanked out from under them,' added Chilakamarri, who is now with the law firm K&L Gates.
CNBC
13-05-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Reade: We need both sides to sit down and hammer out details
Claire Reade, Senior Counsel at Arnold & Porter and ex-U.S. trade rep, says current U.S.-China talks follow a classic path but remain tough. She warns high tariffs still hurt both economies.
New York Times
17-03-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
D.H.S. Says Deported Professor Attended Hezbollah Leader's Funeral
The Department of Homeland Security said on Monday that it had deported a Brown University professor and doctor with a valid visa because they said she attended a Hezbollah leader's funeral in February during a trip to Lebanon. When questioned by Customs and Border Protection officers upon her return to the United States, Dr. Rasha Alawieh, who is Lebanese, 'openly admitted' her support for the leader, Hassan Nasrallah, according to a Homeland Security spokeswoman. Dr. Alawieh was detained at Boston Logan International Airport on Thursday. 'A visa is a privilege not a right,' the spokeswoman, Tricia McLaughlin, said in a statement to The New York Times. 'Glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be denied. This is common-sense security.' The department did not say how it knew that Dr. Alawieh had attended the funeral, which was held in a sports stadium and attracted tens of thousands of people. It also did not respond to questions about whether Dr. Alawieh has been accused of a crime or immigration violation. Stephanie Marzouk, a lawyer representing a member of Dr. Alawieh's family, did not respond to an interview request on Monday. Late on Sunday, a team of lawyers from the firm of Arnold & Porter, who had been set to represent the family, withdrew from the case, telling the court their decision was made 'as a result of further diligence.' The federal judge overseeing the case decided to postpone a hearing in the case on Monday after Ms. Marzouk requested more time to prepare. She represents Dr. Alawieh's cousin, Yara Chehab, who brought the case first to try to stop the government from deporting Dr. Alawieh, and then to seek her return to the United States. Michael Sady, an assistant United States Attorney, filed a new motion in the case on Monday morning, according to the court docket. That filing and others have been sealed. Dr. Alawieh, 34, is a Lebanese citizen who had traveled to her home country last month. She was detained on Thursday when she returned from that trip to the United States, according to a court complaint filed by Ms. Chehab. The judge in the case, Leo T. Sorokin of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts, ordered the government on Friday evening to provide the court with 48 hours' notice before deporting Dr. Alawieh. But at that time she was apparently already aboard a plane that was sitting on the tarmac in Boston, about to take off for Paris on her way to Lebanon. According to the court docket, the government said on Monday that it was not aware of Judge Sorokin's order when Dr. Alawieh's plane took off. But Clare Saunders, one of the lawyers who was initially involved in the case, said in an affidavit filed over the weekend that she was at the airport Friday evening and had informed Customs and Border Protection officers of the judge's order before the flight departed. Ms. Saunders is with Arnold & Porter, the firm that withdrew from the case on Sunday night. Dr. Alawieh graduated from the American University of Beirut in 2015. Three years later, she came to the United States, where she held medical fellowships at the Ohio State University and the University of Washington, and then worked as a resident at Yale. While she was in Lebanon visiting relatives, the American consulate issued her an H1-B visa, the kind for foreign workers with specialized skills. Before that, she had a J-1 visa, a type used by some foreign students. A spokesman for Brown University, Brian Clark, said, 'We continue to seek to learn more about what has happened.' There is a shortage of American doctors working in Dr. Alawieh's area of specialty, transplant nephrology. Foreign-born physicians play an important role in the field, according to experts. Fear over immigration status could 'harm the pipeline even more,' said Dr. George Bayliss, who works in the Brown Medicine kidney transplant program with Dr. Alawieh. Her patients included individuals awaiting transplants and those dealing with the complex conditions that can occur after a transplant, Dr. Bayliss said. He called Dr. Alawieh 'a very talented, very thoughtful physician.' He also said he had not discussed politics with her. In a letter on Sunday to members of the university community, Brown's administration advised foreign students to 'consider postponing or delaying personal travel outside the United States until more information is available from the U.S. Department of State.'
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
60 percent of Americans feel trapped in their jobs
Burnout is at an all-time high among Americans. That's according to a study from learning platform Moodle, which found that 66 percent of workers are suffering. This is a sharp increase in reported burnout from last year. In 2024, the 14th annual Aflac WorkForces Report found that 33 percent of employees were experiencing high levels of stress. This year, Moodle says, 24 percent of U.S. workers feel like they have more work to complete than time to do it. Not having enough resources or the right tools to do their job properly is an issue for a further 24 percent. 6 jobs to discover this week Senior Policy Specialist, Arnold & Porter, Washington D.C. Manager Federal Affairs, American Dental Association, Washington D.C. Federal Advocacy Manager, Alaska Wilderness League, Washington D.C. Policy Advisor, Arnold & Porter, Washington D.C. Enforcement Division Chief, Fair Political Practices Commission, Sacramento Executive Director, The Common Good, New York A poor economic outlook is affecting workplace wellbeing for 20 percent, and 19 percent report taking on too much work due to labor shortages in their industry. 'American workers across most industries are struggling – especially young employees. Burnout rates are high and the threat of AI is triggering significant fear about their relevance at work,' says Scott Anderberg, who is the CEO of Moodle. Another aspect exacerbating employee stress is the rise of return of office mandates (RTO). 2024 was a year characterized by significant tension around RTO for American workers. And 2025 looks set to keep the pressure on. With the Trump administration now in power, RTO mandates are in sharp focus thanks to the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Its mission is to slash federal spending, with its activities overseen by Elon Musk. One of the ways it is doing that is by reducing the federal workforce. Already, reports indicate that thousands of federal government employees have been laid off. DOGE has told agency leaders to plan for 'large-scale reductions in force'. Within this wider environment, it isn't surprising that many American workers are worried, stressed and fearful for their futures. New research from Resume Now has identified a new workplace trend: Career Gridlock. This is a phenomenon where workers remain trapped in jobs due to financial fears, skill gaps, and uncertainty. In fact, 60 percent of workers have stayed in roles longer than they wanted because of the perceived difficulty of making a career transition. Despite 66 percent believing a career change would boost their happiness, only 13 percent have successfully made the leap. Workers have a number of reasons for caution. Perhaps unsurprisingly, money comes out on top. The research found that financial instability and salary concerns are the biggest barriers to career change. Thirty-five percent fear starting over at a lower salary, while 34 percent worry about financial instability during the transition. Uncertainty about career fit adds to the hesitation for 32 percent who are uncertain whether a new career would be a good match for them. In a very uncertain labor market, where there are more job hunters than open roles, skills gaps and competition are also top concerns. Twenty percent are worried about gaining the necessary skills, and 14 percent worry about how they will stack up compared with more experienced candidates. 'Career changes can feel daunting, especially when financial concerns and uncertainty come into play,' says Keith Spencer, career expert at Resume Now. 'But today's job market is shifting—employers are prioritizing skills over degrees, and switching careers doesn't mean starting from scratch. By leveraging transferable skills and taking a strategic approach to the job search, workers can transition into new roles with confidence.' Whether you're looking for the next step on the ladder or a complete career pivot, you can browse thousands of openings on The Hill Job Board Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
