Publications & Resources

On July 25, 2019, the Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic filed an amicus brief on behalf of former officials in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies who are concerned that EPA’s directive to prohibit recipients of its grants from serving on EPA’s science advisory committees will weaken the agency’s ability to protect human health and the environment. The Clinic’s brief explains that scientists who receive EPA grants provide valuable and highly relevant scientific expertise to the agency, and barring them from the science advisory committees would impair EPA’s ability to base its decisions on the “best available science.”

On August 3, 2020, the Clinic filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to affirm a 9th Circuit decision in a case involving the application of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to Biological Opinions prepared under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 9th Circuit rejected the argument of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that the Biological Opinions are exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege.

Wendy B. Jacobs, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Transparency Rule Threatens Health, Annals of Internal Medicine, Volume 170, No. 3 (February 5, 2019) (with R. N. Salas, MD, MPH, MS; F. Laden, ScD; and A. K. Jha, MD, MPH)

In January 2014, the Clinic filed an amicus brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case involving challenges to EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program of the Clean Air Act. In the brief, filed on behalf of Calpine Corporation, the Clinic described Calpine’s experience as a company that had gone through the PSD permitting process for greenhouse gases on six occasions. In contrast to the assertions of some of the petitioners in the case, Calpine’s experience demonstrated that GHG PSD permitting has not resulted in excessive delays or costs.

Aladdine Joroff, Energy Justice: What is Means and How to Integrate It Into State Regulation of Electricity Markets, ELI, Environmental Law Reporter (November, 2017)

In this case, the D.C. Circuit is reviewing challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s landmark regulations governing emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants. The Clinic, on behalf of a group of law professors including Professors Freeman and Lazarus, argued that EPA’s regulatory approach was justified by the history and text of the Clean Air Act.

On November 30, 2020, the Clinic filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Wild Virginia v. Council on Environmental Quality, challenging the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) recent revisions to its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Clinic’s brief argues that the recent CEQ revisions are inconsistent with Congress’ intent in enacting NEPA, in that CEQ’s new regulations will significantly weaken the effectiveness of the NEPA process by lessening the frequency and scope of NEPA analyses, reducing public involvement, and limiting judicial review.

On August 20, 2019, the Clinic submitted a written statement on behalf of 32 concerned medical and public health experts, scientists, researchers, and clinicians to urge the Science Advisory Board (“SAB”) to conduct a full review of the EPA’s proposal “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science”. The Clinic emphasized that the Proposal will exclude important public health data from the agency’s consideration when setting regulatory standards and will therefore undermine—not strengthen—EPA’s decision-making.

On January 10, 2020, the Clinic submitted comments to the EPA Science Advisory Board (“SAB”) on the SAB’s draft report on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil- Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units—Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review, 84 Fed. Reg. 2670 (Feb. 7, 2019).

On January 10, 2020, the Clinic submitted comments to the EPA Science Advisory Board (“SAB”) on the SAB’s draft commentary on EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ proposed Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 84 Fed. Reg. 4154 (Feb. 14, 2019).