The opinion assignment power, justice Scalia's un-becoming, and UARG's unanticipated cloud over the clean air act

Harvard Environmental Law Review

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 37-49

  Lazarus, Richard J ^a  

^a HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION; EMISSION CONTROL; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; GREENHOUSE GAS;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84983451604     PISSN: 01478257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. See Jody Freeman, Symposium: Soft Landings and Strategic Choices, SCOTUSBLOG (Feb. 5, 2014), http://perma.cc/9UXT-X7KE.
2. See, e.g., David Doniger, What Will the Supreme Court's Latest Climate-Change Case Mean?, SWITCHBOARD (May 18, 2014), http://perma.cc/K7S9-PPB6.
3. Adam Liptak, Justices Uphold Emission Limits on Big Industry, N.Y. TIMES (June 23, 2014), http://perma.cc/3FS-NCH3.
4. See, e.g., Lyle Denniston, Opinion Analysis: EPA Mostly Wins, but with Criticism, SCOTUSBLOG (June 23, 2014), http://perma.cc/975L-VMK4.
5. See Richard Lazarus, The National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Reappraisal and a Peek Behind the Curtains, 100 GEO. L.J. 1507, 1573-85 (2012).
6. See WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, THE SUPREME COURT 264-65 (Alfred A. Knopf 2001) (1987); DAVID M. O'BRIEN, STORM CENTER: THE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN POLITICS 267 (10th ed. 2014).
7. Stat Pack for October Term 2013, SCOTUSBLOG 2 (July 3, 2014), http://perma.cc/A8PK-2L PW.
8. See Linda Greenhouse, Supreme Court; Of Meaty Tea Leaves and Other Bafflements, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 12, 1985), http://perma.cc/A27P-C3KH.
9. Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1175, 1179 (1989).
10. Cf. John F. Manning, The Supreme Court, 2013 Term-Foreword: The Means of Constitutional Power, 128 HARV. L. REV. 1, 71 n.411 (2014) (commenting on how Justice Scalia's majority opinion in UARG "undermines Congress's power to use uniform language to express uniform policy" and how "the Court disregarded Congress's choice to adopt a single definition of what 'air pollutant' means '[w]hen used in [the Clean Air Act]'" (brackets in original)).