With the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia ’60 of the U.S. Supreme Court on February 13 has come an outpouring of remembrances and testaments to his transformative presence during his 30 years on the Court. On February 24, Dean Martha Minow and a panel of seven Harvard Law School professors, each of whom had a personal or professional connection to the justice, gathered to remember his life and work.
It is the rare law review article that directly leads the Supreme Court to change how it does business. But that’s exactly what happened after the Harvard Law Review published an article in 2014 by Richard Lazarus, revealing how Supreme Court opinions get changed after issuance, with little public notice.
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 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.
On Feb. 24, a panel of Harvard Law School professors, all of whom had personal or professional connections to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, gathered to remember his life and work.
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.
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.
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 […]
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 […]
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the rebuttal of my colleagues Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus, who continue to take issue with my legal objections to EPA’s “Clean Power Plan.” I was tempted just to let them have the last word, because I don’t think their rebuttal effectively answers my original post, but I […]