At oral arguments, Justices question whether EPA considered costs of regulation at the right time.
Considering the costs and benefits of regulation should include indirect effects in the calculation.
EPA's consideration of costs in regulating toxic air pollutants should prove sufficient.
Apr 28, 2015 - Apr 30, 2015
RegBlog features commentaries on this term’s oral arguments in Michigan v. EPA.
In its upcoming term, Supreme Court will decide key regulatory issues.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide when a state agency is immune from federal antitrust law.
"Chevron deference has created a regulatory landscape where agencies may in some cases do what they want, rather than what the law requires..
"If you had to distill the Chevron doctrine to nine words, I do not think you could do better than: 'When I am confused, I go with the..
Recent Supreme Court decision misses a climate change solution that could satisfy all parties.
The Supreme Court lets the president down easy in NLRB v. Noel Canning.