Anti-regulatory skewing and political choice in UARG

Harvard Environmental Law Review

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 63-77

  Buzbee, William W ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR QUALITY; ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK;

EID: 84983443223     PISSN: 01478257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 9-10 (2012).
2. Cecilia Segal, Climate Regulation Under the Clean Air Act in the Wake of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA: Introduction, 39 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 1 (2015).
3. Craig N. Oren, Prevention of Significant Deterioration: Control-Compelling Versus Site-Shifting, 74 IOWA L. REV. 1, 10-15 (1988-89)
4. Michael Herz, Purposivism and Institutional Competence in Statutory Interpretation, 2009 MICH. ST. L. REV. 89, 106-10 (2009) (discussing the PSD program's history in critique of purposivist interpretation).
5. ROBERT GLICKSMAN ET AL., ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: LAW & POLICY ch. XII, sec. A (7th ed. forthcoming 2015) (reviewing recent climate science).
6. For materials introducing and critiquing the new textualism, see WILLIAM ESKRIDGE JR. ET AL., STATUTES, REGULATION, AND INTERPRETATION: LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF STATUTE 349-445 (2014) (especially relevant are pages 366-70). For citation of foundational scholarship, see id. at 367 n.5.
7. ANTONIN SCALIA, A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION: FEDERAL COURTS AND THE LAW 29-34 (1997).
8. Albert C. Lin, Erosive Interpretation of Environmental Law in the Supreme Court's 2003-04 Term, 42 HOUS. L. REV. 565, 574-76, 580-605 (2005)
9. Bradford C. Mank, Is a Textualist Approach to Statutory Interpretation Pro-Environmentalist?: Why Pragmatic Agency Decisionmaking Is Better than Judicial Literalism, 53 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 1231, 1290 (1996).
10. See generally Kenneth A. Schepsle, Congress Is a "They," Not an "It": Legislative Intent as Oxymoron, 12 INT'L REV. L. & ECON. 239 (1992).
11. See David M. Driesen, Purposeless Construction, 48 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 97, 118-22 (2013) (discussing such critiques of purposivism).
12. This author has criticized such "holistic textualism" and interstatutory and intrastatutory crossreferencing on theoretical grounds and due to sloppy judicial application in William W. Buzbee, The One-Congress Fiction in Statutory Interpretation, 149 U. PA. L. REV. 171, 238-
13. ADRIAN VERMEULE, JUDGING UNDER UNCERTAINTY: AN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION 202-05 (2006). 39 533
14. See generally Antonin Scalia, Assoc. Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Remarks by the Honorable Antonin Scalia for the 25th Anniversary of Chevron v. NRDC, in 66 ADMIN. L. REV. 243 (2014) [hereinafter Remarks by Scalia]
15. Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1175, 1178, 1187 (1989) (describing why a rule-based approach is superior "to a discretion-conferring approach to judicial law making").
16. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 863, 866 (1984).
17. Juliet Eilperin & R. Jeffrey Smith, EPA Won't Act on Emissions This Year: Instead of New Rules, More Comments Sought, WASH. POST (July 11, 2008), http://perma.cc/DF5Z-VAKU
18. Kevin M. Stack & Michael P. Vandenbergh, The One Percent Problem, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 1385, 1388-90, 1402-18 (2011).
19. Jonathan T. Molot, Reexamining Marbury in the Administrative State: A Structural and Institutional Defense of Judicial Power over Statutory Interpretation, 96 NW. U. L. REV. 1239, 1327 (2002)
20. Cass R. Sunstein, Beyond Marbury: The Executive's Power to Say What the Law Is, 115 YALE L.J. 2580, 2605-07 (2006).
21. See generally Glen Staszewski, Avoiding Absurdity, 81 IND. L.J. 1001 (2006)
22. See Buzbee, supra note 38, at 238-39 (using the limited data point metaphor); Thomas W. Merrill, Textualism and the Future of the Chevron Doctrine, 72 WASH. U. L.Q. 351, 373 (1994)
23. William D. Popkin, An Internal Critique of Justice Scalia's Theory of Statutory Interpretation, 76 MINN. L. REV. 1133, 1148-50 (1992) (questioning the drawing of inferences based on comparisons of usage within a statute).
24. T. Alexander Aleinikoff & Theodore M. Shaw, The Costs of Incoherence: A Comment on Plain Meaning, West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, and Due Process of Statutory Interpretation, 45 VAND. L. REV. 687, 697 (1992)
25. George H. Taylor, Structural Textualism, 75 B.U. L. REV. 321, 341-66 (1995) (explaining structural textualism and discussing its pros and cons);
26. Adrian Vermeule, Three Strategies of Interpretation, 42 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 607, 618-21 (2005)
27. NRDC Experts: EPA Carbon Pollution Limits for New Power Plants Workable, Popular and Would Address Climate Change, Natural Res. Def. Council (Feb. 6, 2014), http://perma.cc/MGE3-R29P