Presidential power in an era of polarized conflict

On April 1, Harvard Law School hosted a conference on ‘Presidential Power in an Era of Polarized Conflict,’ a daylong gathering in which experts from both sides of the aisle debated the president’s power in foreign and domestic affairs, and in issues of enforcement or non-enforcement.

Two former Republican EPA Administrators file brief supporting Obama’s plan to cut carbon emissions

Two former EPA Administrators, who served Republican Presidents, William D. Ruckelshaus and William K. Reilly, filed a friend of the court brief supporting the Obama administration’s plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants. EPA’s Clean Power Plan is being challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by a coalition of State and industry opponents. This week, EPA filed its response to the legal challenge, and a number of other briefs are being filed in support of the Administration.

Lazarus looks at Obama emissions plan in post-Scalia court

Justice Antonin Scalia’s death and the battle over selecting his successor have raised the prospect of an extended period with a Supreme Court split 4-4 between conservative and liberal justices–‘In short, a mess’ for the legal future of the Clean Power Plan, according to Richard Lazarus.

Freeman, Lazarus author amicus motion on behalf of former EPA Administrators to back Clean Power Plan

Former United States EPA Administrators William D. Ruckelshaus and William K. Reilly formally moved today to participate in pending litigation in support of the legality of the President’s Clean Power Plan. The motion seeking leave to file a friend of the court brief was written by Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus of Harvard Law School.

A rebuttal from Tribe

In previous exchanges with my colleagues Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus, I have explained why EPA’s Clean Power Plan lacks statutory authority and raises serious constitutional questions that would in fact eliminate any claim by EPA to deference for its revisionist reading of the Clean Air Act. In their most recent post, Freeman and Lazarus […]

A followup from Freeman and Lazarus

For the purposes of what we hope to be our final rebuttal, we will confine ourselves to just one topic: the essential distinction between legal advocacy and legal scholarship. Our silence on other matters should not, however, be misunderstood as acquiescence. None of Tribe’s constitutional arguments (separation of powers, Tenth Amendment, Read More Laurence Tribe’s […]