Bush, G. H.W.. “Remarks to the National Academy of Sciences.” April 23, 1990. http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1990/90042301.html.Google Scholar

Kron, A.. “EPA’s Role in Implementing and Maintaining the Oil and Gas Industry’s Environmental Exemptions: A Study in Three Statutes.” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 16 no. 4 (2014): 586–635.Google Scholar

Kovarik, W.. “Ethyl-leaded Gasoline: How a Classic Occupational Disease Became an International Public Health Disaster.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 11, no. 4. (2005): 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2005.11.4.384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rosner, D. and Markowitz, G.. Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2013.Google Scholar

Jacobs, C. and Kelly, W.. Smogtown: The Lung-Burning History of Pollution in Los Angeles. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Banerjee, N., Hasemyer, D. and Song, L.. “For Oil Industry, Clean Air Fight Was Dress Rehearsal for Climate Denial.” Inside Climate News, June 6, 2016. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05062016/oil-industry-clean-air-fight-smog-los-angeles-dress-rehearsal-climate-change-denial-exxon.Google Scholar

“Congress Faces Hard Choices on Clean Air Act.” CQ Almanac, 31st edition (1976): 245–250. http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal75-1213793.Google Scholar

Hays, S.. “Clean Air: From the 1970 Act to the 1977 Amendments.” Duquesne Law Review 17, no. 1 (1977–78): 33–66.Google Scholar

Gamble, J. F.. “PM2.5 and Mortality in Long-term Prospective Cohort Studies: Cause–Effect or Statistical Associations?” Environmental Health Perspectives 106, no. 9 (September 1998): 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.98106535.Google Scholar

Warrick, J.. “Opponents Await Proposal to Limit Air Particulates: Industry Giants Mobilize to Block New EPA Rules.” Washington Post, November 27, 1996.Google Scholar

Warrick, J. and Yang, J. E.. “Stricter Air Quality Rules May Test Hill’s New Veto; Several GOP Chairmen Critical of EPA Move.” Washington Post, November 28, 1996.Google Scholar

Occupational Exposure to Benzene; Final Rule. Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Department of Labor. 43 Federal Register 27962–27971 (June 27, 1978).Google Scholar

American Petroleum Institute, Benzene Task Force. Summary of API’s Benzene Research Strategy (2000). www.documentcloud.org/documents/1373740-2000-api-summary-of-benzene-research-strategy.html#document/p2/a191357.Google Scholar

Infante, P.F.. “The Past Suppression of Industry Knowledge of the Toxicity of Benzene to Humans and Potential Bias in Future Benzene Research.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 13, no. 3 (July 19, 2013): 268–272. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2006.12.3.268.Google Scholar

American Petroleum Institute. API Toxicological Review: Benzene, Prepared under the Direction of Dr. Philip Drinker. Harvard School of Public Health (New York: September 1948). www.documentcloud.org/documents/1373098-00010795.html.Google Scholar

Lombardi, K. and Bennett, J.. A Dozen Dirty Documents: Twelve Documents That Stand Out from the Center’s New Oil and Chemical Industry Archive. Center for Public Integrity (December 2014). https://publicintegrity.org/environment/a-dozen-dirty-documents.Google Scholar

Dunlap, R. E. and McCright, A. M.. “Climate Change Denial: Sources, Actors, and Strategies.” In Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by Lever-Tracy, C.. 240–259 (London: Routledge, 2010).Google Scholar

Brulle, R. J.. “Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of US Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations.” Climatic Change 122, no. 4. (2014): 681–694. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7.Google Scholar

Dunlap, R. E. and Brulle, R. J.. Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar

Supran, G. and Oreskes, N.. “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications (1977–2014).” Environmental Research Letters 12, no. 8 (2017).Google Scholar

Grasso, M.. “Oily Politics: A Critical Assessment of the Oil and Gas Industry’s Contribution to Climate Change.” Energy Research & Social Science 50 (April 2019): 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.017.Google Scholar

Oreskes, N.. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?” In Climate Change: What it Means for You, Your Children, and Your Grandchildren, edited by DiMento, J. F. C. and Doughman, P.. 65–99. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Michaels, D.. Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. M.. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011.Google Scholar

Schwartz, J.. Facts Not Fear on Air Pollution: How Regulators, Environmentalists and Scientists Exaggerate the Level and Health Risks of Air Pollution and Impose Counterproductive Regulations. National Center for Policy Analysis Policy Report No. 294 (2006). www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/facts-not-fear-on-air-pollution-how-regulators-environmentalists-and-scientists-exaggerate-the-level-and-health-risks-of-air-pollution-and-impose-counterproductive-regulations.Google Scholar

Crews, W. and Osorio, I.. This Liberal Congress Went to Market? A Bipartisan Policy Agenda for the 110th Congress. Competitive Enterprise Institute. January 10, 2007. www.cei.org/sites/default/files/1-CEI%20-%20This%20Liberal%20Congress%20Went%20to%20Market.pdf.Google Scholar

Feldman, H. J., senior director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs at American Petroleum Institute. Testimony Regarding EPA’s Proposal to Change the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. July 17, 2012.Google Scholar

Goodman, J. E.. Testimony on the Proposed Rule: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. July 17, 2012.Google Scholar

Feldman, H. J., senior director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs at American Petroleum Institute. Testimony of Howard J. Feldman, Public Hearings for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS Proposed Rule. January 29, 2015.Google Scholar

Dockery, D. W. et al. “An Association between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six US Cities.” New England Journal of Medicine 329, no. 24 (December 9, 1993): 1753–1759. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401.Google Scholar

Pope, A.C. et al. “Particulate Air Pollution As a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of US Adults.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 151, no. 3 (1995): 669–674.Google Scholar

FreedomWorks. “Issue Analysis 50 – The EPA’s New Clean Air Standards: A Primer.” News release. 1997. www.freedomworks.org/content/issue-analysis-50-epas-new-clean-air-standards-primer.Google Scholar

Thurston, G. D.. “Mandating the Release of Health Research Data: Issues and Implications.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 11 (1998): 331–354.Google Scholar

Health Effects Institute. Synopsis of the Particle Epidemiology Reanalysis Project (2000). www.healtheffects.org/system/files/Reanalysis-Statement.pdf.Google Scholar

Krewski, D. et al. “Overview of the Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 66, no. 16–19 (2003): 1507–1552. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287390306424.Google Scholar

Krewski, D.. “Validation of the Harvard Six Cities Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” New England Journal of Medicine 350 (January 8, 2004): 198–199. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200401083500225.Google Scholar

Smith, L.. “The EPA’s Game of Secret Science.” Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2013. www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323829104578624562008231682.Google Scholar

Logomasini, A., senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Pruitt’s Rule Ending Secret Science Is Pro-Science, Pro-Consumer.” The Hill, April 4, 2018. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/385411-pruitts-rule-ending-secret-science-is-pro-science-pro-consumer.Google Scholar

American Petroleum Institute, Draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan. Inside Climate News (1998).Google Scholar

Muffett, C. and Feit, S.. Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis. Center for International Environmental Law (Washington, DC: November 2017). www.ciel.org/reports/smoke-and-fumes.Google Scholar

Franta, B.. “Early Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 and Global Warming.” Nature Climate Change 8 (2018): 1024–1025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0349-9.Google Scholar

US House of Representatives. Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (2017).Google Scholar

US House of Representatives. Paris Climate Promise: A Bad Deal for America. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (2016).Google Scholar

Freudenburg, W. R., Gramling, R. and Davidson, D. J.. “Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the Politics of Doubt.” Sociological Inquiry 78, no. 1 (February 2008): 2–38.Google Scholar

Dunlap, R. E. and McCright, A. M.. “Organized Climate Change Denial.” The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B. and Schlosberg, D.. 144–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.003.0010.Google Scholar

Turner, J. M. and Isenberg, A. C.. The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.Google Scholar

Dineen, K. P.. “Reading the Tea Leaves: The Tea Party Movement, the Conservative Establishment and the Collapse of Climate Change Legislation.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology Masters Dissertation (June 2011). https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/66804/757149232-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.Google Scholar

McGarity, T. O.. “The Disruptive Politics of Climate Disruption.” Nova Law Review 38, no. 3 (2014): 394–472. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.ecosia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1002&context=nlr.Google Scholar

Heritage Foundation. “Trump Administration Embraces Heritage Foundation Policy Recommendations.” January 23, 2018. www.heritage.org/impact/trump-administration-embraces-heritage-foundation-policy-recommendations.Google Scholar

Bharara, P. et al. Proposals for Reform. National Task Force on Rule of Law & Democracy, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. (2019). www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/2019_10_TaskForce%20II_0.pdf.Google Scholar

Trump, D. J.. Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. E.O. 13783, 82 Federal Register 16093–16097. Washington, DC, March 28, 2017. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-economic-growth.Google Scholar

Sussman, B.. “Back to Basics or Slash and Burn? Scott Pruitt’s Reign As EPA Administrator.” Environmental Law Institute 47, no. 109 (2017): 7–26. www.eli.org/sites/default/files/docs/47.10917.pdf.Google Scholar

Roberts, D.. “Donald Trump Is Handing the Federal Government over to Fossil Fuel Interests.” Vox, June 14, 2017. www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/13/15681498/trump-government-fossil-fuels.Google Scholar

Kravitz, D., Shaw, A. and Arnsdorf, I.. “What We Found in Trump’s Drained Swamp: Hundreds of Ex-lobbyists and DC Insiders.” ProPublica, March 7, 2018. www.propublica.org/article/what-we-found-in-trump-administration-drained-swamp-hundreds-of-ex-lobbyists-and-washington-dc-insiders.Google Scholar

Fredrickson, L. et al. “History of US Presidential Assaults on Modern Environmental Health Protection.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. S2 (2018): S95–S103.Google Scholar

Dillon, L. et al. “The Environmental Protection Agency in the Early Trump Administration: Prelude to Regulatory Capture.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. S2 (2018): S89–S94. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304360.Google Scholar

Whitehouse, S. et al. Comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Weakening of Rules Governing Methane Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Facilities. Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. December 17, 2018.Google Scholar

Whitman, C. T.. Statement of the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Submitted to US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. June 11, 2019.Google Scholar

Mccarthy, G.. Written Testimony to House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Submitted to US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. June 11, 2019.Google Scholar

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 52056–52107 www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/15/2018-20961/oil-and-natural-gas-sector-emission-standards-for-new-reconstructed-and-modified-sources.Google Scholar

Carter, J. et al. Science Under Siege at the Department of the Interior. Union of Concerned Scientists (December 2018). www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/12/science-under-siege-at-department-of-interior-full-report.pdf.Google Scholar

Carter, J. et al. The State of Science in the Trump Era. Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Union of Concerned Scientists (January 2019). www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/01/ucs-trump-2 yrs-report.pdf.Google Scholar

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Request for an Inquiry under the Scientific Integrity Policy into Final Rule Regarding the Definition of Water of the US. Submitted to Acting Inspector General C. J. Sheehan, Office of Inspector General. January 18, 2020.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Strengthening and Improving Membership on EPA Federal Advisory Committees. Report by E. S. Pruitt (Washington, DC: 2017). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/final_draft_fac_directive-10.31.2017.pdf.Google Scholar

Physicians for Social Responsibility v. Wheeler, 956 F.3d 634, 638 (D.C. Cir. 2020).Google Scholar

Government Accountability Office. EPA Advisory Committees – Improvements Needed for the Member Appointment Process. Report by J. Alfredo Gómez. GAO-19-280 (July 2019). www.gao.gov/assets/710/700171.pdf.Google Scholar

Hornblower, M.. “Businessmen Launch Drive to Soften Clean Air Rules.” Washington Post, January 9, 1979.Google Scholar

Hornblower, M.. “Major Industries Map New Attack on Clean Air Act.” Washington Post, January 15, 1979.Google Scholar

Stern, A. C.. “History of Air Pollution Legislation in the United States.” Journal of Air Pollution Control Association 32, no. 1 (January 1982): 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1982.10465369.Google Scholar

Feldman, H. J., senior director Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, American Petroleum Institute. Regulatory Reform Task Force’s Evaluation of Existing Regulations EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 (82 FR 17793). Submitted to S. K. Dravis, regulatory reform officer and associate administrator for Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy. May 15, 2017.Google Scholar

Feldman, H. J., senior director Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, American Petroleum Institute. Appendices to API Comments on Specific Regulations. Submitted to S. K. Dravis, regulatory reform officer and associate administrator for Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy. May 15, 2017.Google Scholar

“Former CASAC Chair Says Panel Dismissals Will Weaken NAAQS’ Legality.” Clean Air Report (October 18, 2018).Google Scholar

Murray Energy Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 936 F.3d 597 (D.C. Cir. 2019).Google Scholar

Cox, L. A., Jr. Statements on EPA’S Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing. Submitted to Subcommittee on Energy and Power and Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. June 16, 2015.Google Scholar

Cox, L. A., Jr. “Do Causal Concentration–Response Functions Exist? A Critical Review of Associational and Causal Relations between Fine Particulate Matter and Mortality.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology 47, no. 7 (2017): 609–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1311838.Google Scholar

US House of Representatives. EPA’s Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing. Subcommittee on Energy and Power; Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Committee on Energy and Commerce. 114th Cong. 1st Sess. June 16, 2015.Google Scholar

Cox, L. A., Jr., and Popken, D. A.. “Has Reducing Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone Caused Reduced Mortality Rates in the United States?” Annals of Epidemiology 25, no. 3 (2015): 162–173. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25571792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Frey, H. C. et al. CASAC Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018). Submitted to Dr. L. A. Cox, Jr. and the Environmental Protection Agency. December 10, 2018.Google Scholar

Goldman, G. and Dominici, F.. “Don’t Abandon Evidence and Process on Air Pollution Policy.” Science 363, no. 6434 (March 29, 2019): 1398–1400. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw9460.Google Scholar

Vanderberg, J.. John Vanderberg Response to Dr. Louis Anthony Cox, Jr. Submitted to Dr. L. A. Cox, Jr. February 20, 2019.Google Scholar

Waldman, S.. “Science Adviser Allowed Oil Group to Edit Research.” E&E News, December 10, 2018. www.eenews.net/stories/1060109129.Google Scholar

Plautz, J.. “Trump’s Air Pollution Adviser: No Proof Cleaning Up Smog Saves Lives.” Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting, October 24, 2018. www.revealnews.org/article/trumps-air-pollution-adviser-clean-air-saves-no-lives.Google Scholar

Frey, C. H., Futrell, P. J. and Futrell, G. E.. Public Comment on the CASAC Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. December 12, 2018.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Network. Written Comments of John Bachmann on Behalf of the Environmental Protection Network. Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency Acting Administrator A. Wheeler and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. December 9, 2018.Google Scholar

Boylan, D. J. et al. Preliminary Draft Comments from Members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). December 10, 2018.Google Scholar

Cox, L. A., Jr., Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee chair. CASAC Review of the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018). Submitted to A. R. Wheeler. April 11, 2019.Google Scholar

Reilly, S.. “Documents Expose Ties among EPA’s Panel Experts.” E&E News, February 7, 2020. www.eenews.net/stories/1062289617.Google Scholar

Frey, C. H.. Context and Charge Questions for October 10–11, 2019 Meeting to Review the EPA Draft Policy Assessment for Particulate Matter. Submitted to Members of the Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel. September 20, 2019.Google Scholar

Hogue, C.. “US EPA’s Science Advisers Split on Tightening Air Pollution Limit.” Chemical and Engineering News 97, no. 44 (November 10, 2019): 20–21. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cen-09744-feature2.Google Scholar

Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel. Letter on EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft–September 2019). Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. October 22, 2019.Google Scholar

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-452/R-20-002. Research Triangle Park, NC: 2020. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-01/documents/final_policy_assessment_for_the_review_of_the_pm_naaqs_01-2020.pdf.Google Scholar

Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Final Action. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 50. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 82684–82748 (December 18, 2020) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27125/review-of-the-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for-particulate-matter.Google Scholar

Cox, L. A., Jr. “Re: ‘Best Practices for Gauging Evidence of Causality in Air Pollution Epidemiology.’” American Journal of Epidemiology 187, no. 6 (March 23, 2018): 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy034.Google Scholar

Cox, L. A., Jr. “Modernizing the Bradford Hill Criteria for Assessing Causal Relationships in Observational Data.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology 48, no. 8 (January 13, 2018): 682–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2018.1518404.Google Scholar

Fedak, K. M. et al. “Applying the Bradford Hill Criteria in the 21st Century: How Data Integration Has Changed Causal Inference in Molecular Epidemiology.” Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 12, no. 1 (2015): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dominici, F. and Zigler, C.. “Best Practices for Gauging Evidence of Causality in Air Pollution Epidemiology.” American Journal of Epidemiology 186, no. 12 (2017): 1303–1309. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29020141.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, D. S. and Shaikh, R.. “Air Quality and Human Health: The Role of Health Science in Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” Magazine for Environmental Managers, December 2018. http://pubs.awma.org/flip/EM-Dec-2018/greenbaum.pdf.Google Scholar

Saiyid, A. H.. “EPA Advisers Can’t Agree on Revising Ozone Limits.” Bloomberg Law, December 6, 2019. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-advisers-cant-agree-on-what-to-do-about-ozone-limits.Google Scholar

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Consensus Responses to Charge Questions on the EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (External Review Draft – October 2019). Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: February 19, 2020. https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/4713D217BC07103485258515006359BA/$File/EPA-CASAC-20-003.pdf.Google Scholar

Members of the Former Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel (2009–14). Letter on CASAC Advice on the EPA’s Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (External Review Draft). Submitted to Dr. L. A. Cox, Jr., Chair of Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. November 26, 2018.Google Scholar

Members of the Former Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel (2009–14). Letter on EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants and EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. December 2, 2019.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division Research. Research Triangle Park, NC: May 2020. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/o3-final_pa-05-29-20compressed.pdf.Google Scholar

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulation 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 79 Federal Regulations 34829–34958 (June 18, 2014). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-06-18/pdf/2014-13726.pdf.Google Scholar

American Petroleum Institute et al. Comments on the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Electric Utility Generation Units, Proposed Rule (published in the Federal Register 79: 34,830 (June 18, 2014)). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. 2014.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guideline Implementing Regulations; Revisions to New Source Review Program. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impact Division. Washington, DC: August 2018. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/utilities_ria_proposed_ace_2018-08.pdf.Google Scholar

Krupnick, A. and Keyes, A.. “Hazy Treatment of Health Benefits: The Case of the Clean Power Plan.” Resources for the Future, October 13, 2017. www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/hazy-treatment-of-health-benefits-the-case-of-the-clean-power-plan.Google Scholar

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial Institutional, and Small Industrial Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 60 and 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 77 Federal Register 32 (February 16, 2012). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-02-16/pdf/2012-806.pdf.Google Scholar

Todd, M., chair of the Residual Risk Coalition. Comments on “The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Coal-and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review: Proposed Rule.” Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0794. April 17, 2019.Google Scholar

Proposed Rule: 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. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 84 Federal Register 2670–2704 (February 7, 2019). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-07/pdf/2019-00936.pdf.Google Scholar

External Environmental Economics Advisory Committee. Report on the Proposed Changes to the Federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (December 2019). www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/E-EEAC%20Report%20120320191330.pdf.Google Scholar

Regulation of HAP Emissions from Coal- and Oil-fired Electrical General Units Is Not “Appropriate and Necessary”: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 31286–31320 (May 22, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/22/2020-08607/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-coal–and-oil-fired-electric-utility-steam.Google Scholar

Eilperin, J. and Dennis, B.. “The EPA Is about to Change a Rule Cutting Mercury Pollution. The Industry Doesn’t Want It.” Washington Post, February 17, 2020. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/the-epa-is-about-to-change-a-rule-cutting-mercury-pollution-the-industry-doesnt-want-it/2020/02/16/8ebac4e2-4470-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html.Google Scholar

Beitsch, R.. “EPA’s Independent Science Board Says Agency Ignored Its Advice on Mercury Rule.” The Hill, December 31, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/476374-epas-independent-science-board-says-agency-ignored-their-advice-on.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (December 2011). www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf.Google Scholar

Lewis, M., Logomasini, A. and Yeatman, W.. “First Steps for the Trump Administration: Champion Affordable Energy.” Competitive Enterprise Institute (December 15, 2016). https://cei.org/sites/default/files/First%20Steps%20for%20the%20Trump%20Administration%20-%20Chamption%20Affordable%20Energy.pdf.Google Scholar

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impact Division, and Air Benefit-Cost Group. Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response Function for PM2.5-related Mortality. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: 2010. www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/Benefits/thresholdstsd.pdf.Google Scholar

Shi, L. et al. “Low-Concentration PM2.5 and Mortality: Estimating Acute and Chronic Effects in a Population-Based Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 1 (2015): 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409111.Google Scholar

Makar, M. et al. “Estimating the Causal Effect of Fine Particulate Matter Levels on Death and Hospitalization: Are Levels below the Safety Standards Harmful?” Epidemiology 28, no. 5 (2017): 627–634.Google Scholar

Awad, Y. A. et al. “Change in PM2. 5 Exposure and Mortality among Medicare Recipients: Combining a Semi-randomized Approach and Inverse Probability Weights in a Low Exposure Population.” Environmental Epidemiology 3, no. 4 (2019). doi:10.1097/EE9.0000000000000054.Google Scholar

Cong Liu, M. S. et al. “Ambient Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in 652 Cities.” New England Journal of Medicine 381 (August 22, 2019): 705–715. www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1817364?query=featured_home#article_comments.Google Scholar

Castle, K. M. and Revesz, R. L.. “Environmental Standards, Thresholds, and the Next Battleground of Climate Change Regulations.” Minnesota Law Review 103 (2019): 1349–1437. www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/4Revesz_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar

Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. Environmental Protection Agency EPA420-R-04-007. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100K5U2.PDF?Dockey=P100K5U2.PDF.Google Scholar

Natural Resources Defense Council. Comments of Natural Resources Defense Council on “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.” Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259. August 15, 2018.Google Scholar

Bennett, K., Science policy director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Comments on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” Rule. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0001. August 15, 2018.Google Scholar

Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 18768–18774 (April 30, 2018). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science.Google Scholar

Clarifications, Modifications and Additions to Certain Provisions in the Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science Proposed. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 15396–15406 (March 18, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/18/2020-05012/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science.Google Scholar

Wheeler, A. R., administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Testimony. Submitted to House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 2019.Google Scholar

Lavelle, M.. “Pruitt’s Own Scientist Appointees Challenge EPA Science Restrictions.” Inside Climate News, May 17, 2018. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17052018/scott-pruitt-epa-secret-science-health-fossil-fuel-industry.Google Scholar

Green, M. and Beitsch, R.. “EPA Delays Advisers’ Review of ‘Secret Science’ Rules.” The Hill, November 18, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/470968-epa-delays-advisors-review-of-secret-science-rules.Google Scholar

Frey, C. H., former member of the Science Advisory Board, Futrell, G. E. and Futrell, P. J., EPA Has a Statutory Responsibility to Use Properly Developed and Reviewed Science. Submitted to Science Advisory Board, Environmental Protection Agency. June 5, 2019.Google Scholar

United States Code, Title 42, Section 4365.Google Scholar

McNutt, M., president of the National Academy of Sciences, et al. Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259). Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. July 16, 2018.Google Scholar

Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Draft Report: Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of the Scientific and Technical Basis of EPA’s Proposed Rule Titled Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-20-xxx. October 16, 2019.Google Scholar

Eilperin, J.. “EPA’s Scientific Advisors Warn Its Regulatory Rollbacks Clash with Established Science.” Washington Post, January 1, 2020. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/epas-scientific-advisers-warn-its-regulatory-rollbacks-clash-with-established-science/2019/12/31/a1994f5a-227b-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html.Google Scholar

Ioannidis, J.. “All Science Should Inform Policy and Regulation.” PLoS Medicine 15, no. 5 (2018). https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/citation?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002576.Google Scholar

Nosek, B., co-founder and executive director, Center for Open Science. Testimony at Hearing on Strengthening Transparency or Silencing Science? The Future of Science in EPA Rulemaking, 116th Congress. Submitted to House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. November 13, 2019.Google Scholar

Teytelman, L., Gunn, W., and Kamens, J.. “The EPA’s Proposed ‘Transparency Rule’ Will Harm Health, Safety, and the Environment.” Stat News, December 9, 2019. www.statnews.com/2019/12/09/epa-transparency-rule-bad-for-science-health-safety-environment.Google Scholar

Thomas, W.. “Science Committee Renews Scrutiny of EPA Science Transparency Rule.” FYI Bulletin, November 20, 2019. www.aip.org/fyi/2019/science-committee-renews-scrutiny-epa-science-transparency-rule.Google Scholar

Hiar, C.. “In Battle over Pesticide Ban, Trump’s EPA Aims to Undermine the Science.” E&E News, August 23, 2018. www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/battle-over-pesticide-ban-trump-s-epa-aims-undermine-science.Google Scholar

“Researchers Must Unite against US Environment Agency’s Attack on Scientific Evidence.” Nature 575, no. 415 (2019). www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03526-z.Google Scholar

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2019. doi:10.17226/25303.Google Scholar

Jacobs, W. B., Emmett clinical professor of Environmental Law and clinic director. Comments on Proposed Rule Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to A. Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. 2018.Google Scholar

Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Consultation on Mechanisms for Secure Access to Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Confidential Business Information (CBI) Under the Proposed Rule, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-19-005. September 30, 2019.Google Scholar

Allison, D. B. and Fineberg, H. V.. “EPA’s Proposed Transparency Rule: Factors to Consider, many; Planets to Live On, One.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117, no. 10 (March 10, 2020): 5084–5087. www.pnas.org/content/117/10/5084.Google Scholar

Sweeney, L.. “Only You, Your Doctor, and Many Others May Know.” Technology Science no. 2015092903 (2015). https://techscience.org/a/2015092903.Google Scholar

Sweeney, L. et al. “Re-identification Risks in HIPAA Safe Harbor Data: A Study of Data from One Environmental Health Study.” Technology Science no. 2017082801 (2017). https://techscience.org/a/2017082801.Google Scholar

Rocher, L., Hendrickx, J. M. and de Montjoye, Y.-A.. “Estimating the Success of Re-identifications in Incomplete Datasets Using Generative Models.” Nature Communications 10, no. 1 (July 23, 2019): 1–9. www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10933-3#citeas.Google Scholar

National Research Council. Improving Access to and Confidentiality of Research Data: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.17226/9958.Google Scholar

Gostin, L. O., Levit, L. A., Nass, S. J.. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health through Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9578/.Google Scholar

Sherer, T.. Testimony on Behalf of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. Submitted to E. B. Johnson, chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and F. Lucas, ranking member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. November 13, 2019.Google Scholar

Goodwin, J.. “The EPA’s ‘Censored Science’ Rule Isn’t Just Bad Policy, It’s Also Illegal.” Union of Concerned Scientists Blog, November 22, 2019. https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/the-epas-censored-science-rule-isnt-just-bad-policy-its-also-illegal.Google Scholar

Johnson, E. B., chair of House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Opening Statement: Strengthening Transparency or Silencing Science? The Future of Science in EPA Rulemaking. Submitted to House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. November 13, 2019.Google Scholar

Michaels, D.. The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.Google Scholar

Christopher, C. H., Bracewell & Patterson, LLP. Background and Proposed Program to Address Federal Agency Science. Submitted to T. Hyde and R. Johnson, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. December 23, 1996.Google Scholar

Lerner, S.. “Republicans Are Using Big Tobacco’s Secret Science Playbook to Gut Health Rules.” The Intercept, February 5, 2017. https://theintercept.com/2017/02/05/republicans-want-to-make-the-epa-great-again-by-gutting-health-regulations/.Google Scholar

Kothari, Y.. “Internal EPA Emails Confirm That Scott Pruitt’s Secret Science Proposal Is Entirely Driven by Politics.” Union of Concerned Scientists, April 19, 2018. https://blog.ucsusa.org/yogin-kothari/internal-epa-emails-confirm-that-scott-pruitts-secret-science-proposal-is-entirely-driven-by-politics?_ga=2.73012819.1119798374.1584912229-994550056.1584912229.Google Scholar

National Task Force on Rule of Law and Democracy. Proposals for Reform. Report by P. Bharara et al. (2019). www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/2019_10_TaskForce%20II_0.pdfGoogle Scholar

Parkes, D.. “Basic Science, Agricultural Research, NASA Would Finish Strong in FY 2019 Omnibus.” American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 14, 2019. www.aaas.org/news/basic-science-agricultural-research-nasa-would-finish-strong-fy-2019-omnibus.Google Scholar

Frelinghuysen, R., chair, House Committee on Appropriations. Opening Statement at the Hearing on the FY 2018 Budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Submitted to House Committee on Appropriations. June 15, 2017.Google Scholar

Calvert, K., chair of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations. Opening Statement at the Hearing on the FY 2018 Budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Submitted to House Committee on Appropriations. June 15, 2017.Google Scholar

Collins, S.. “Senator Collins to Oppose EPA Administrator Nominee’s Confirmation.” News release, February 15, 2017. www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins-oppose-epa-administrator-nominee%E2%80%99s-confirmation.Google Scholar

Collins, S.. “Senator Collins to Oppose EPA Administrator Nominee’s Confirmation.” News release, February 27, 2019. www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins-oppose-epa-administrator-nominee%E2%80%99s-confirmation-0.Google Scholar

Green, M.. “Senate Confirms Wheeler to Lead EPA.” The Hill, February 28, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/432033-senate-confirms-wheeler-to-lead-epa.Google Scholar

Cama, T.. “Two GOP Senators Oppose Trump’s EPA Chemical Safety Nominee.” The Hill, November 15, 2017. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/360615-2-gop-senators-oppose-trumps-epa-chemical-safety-nominee.Google Scholar

Lydersen, K.. “EPA Toxics Nominee Provided Koch-Funded Study in Chicago Petcoke Battle.” Energy News Network, September 7, 2017. https://energynews.us/2017/09/07/midwest/epa-toxics-nominee-provided-koch-funded-study-in-chicago-petcoke-battle/.Google Scholar

Editorial Board. “Mr. Trump’s Conflicted Regulators.” New York Times, October 18, 2017.Google Scholar

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and Division of Community Health Investigations. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Frequently Asked Questions. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/docs/pfas_fact_sheet.pdf.Google Scholar

Hopkins, Z. R. et al. “Recently Detected Drinking Water Contaminants: GenX and Other Per‐and Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Acids.” American Water Works Association 110, no. 7 (2018). https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/awwa.1073.Google Scholar

Lee, T. S., London, I. and Kindschuh, J.. “PFAS in the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry.” Lexology, August 2, 2019. www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ca7bf9a5-b0f7-4089-a993-6ca387c47f3f.Google Scholar

Wittenberg, A.. “After Controversy, US Releases Report Showing Elevated Health Risks from Nonstick Chemicals.” E&E News, June 20, 2018. www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/after-controversy-us-releases-report-showing-elevated-health-risks-nonstick-chemicals.Google Scholar

Patterson, B.. “Previously Blocked Federal Study Raises Alarm about Chemicals Like C8.” Ohio Valley Resource, June 20, 2018. https://ohiovalleyresource.org/2018/06/20/previously-blocked-federal-study-raises-alarm-pfas-chemicals/.Google Scholar

Department of Health and Human Services. Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls – Draft for Public Comment (2018). www.eenews.net/assets/2018/06/20/document_gw_08.pdf.Google Scholar

House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. Letter of Concern Regarding Rollback Measures. Submitted to A. Wheeler. 2019.Google Scholar

House of Representatives. Letter of Concern Regarding NAAQS and CAA. Submitted to A. Wheeler. 2019.Google Scholar

Mervis, J. and Cornwall, W.. “Lamar Smith, the Departing Head of the House Science Panel, Will Leave a Controversial and Complicated Legacy.” Science, November 5, 2017. www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/lamar-smith-departing-head-house-science-panel-will-leave-controversial-and-complicated.Google Scholar

Leiter, A. C.. Reversing Course: Administrative Law in a Time of Change. American University Washington College of Law (2018). www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/environment_energy_resources/2018/fall/course_materials/8_Leiter.pdf.Google Scholar

US Congress. Letter of Concern on Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science Rule. Submitted to S. Pruitt. 2018.Google Scholar

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. A Letter to Administrator Pruitt, EPA. Submitted to S. Pruitt. 2018.Google Scholar

Mervis, J.. “Scientific Integrity Bill Advances in US House with Bipartisan Support.” Science, October 17, 2019. www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/scientific-integrity-bill-advances-us-house-bipartisan-support.Google Scholar

Showstack, R.. “Scientific Integrity Act Passes House Committee.” Eos, October 18, 2019. https://eos.org/articles/scientific-integrity-act-passes-house-committee.Google Scholar

US Congress. Senate. Scientific Integrity Act. S. 775, 116th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in Senate March 12, 2019.Google Scholar

Krauss, L. M.. “Trump’s Anti-Science Campaign.” New Yorker, August 21, 2016. www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-anti-science-campaign.Google Scholar

Acrivos, A. et al. An Open Letter to President-Elect Trump and the 115th Congress on Science and the Public Interest. Submitted to President D. J. Trump, 115th Congress. November 30, 2016.Google Scholar

Goldman, G. et al. “Ensuring Scientific Integrity in the Age of Trump.” Science 355, no. 6326 (2017): 696–698. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6326/696.Google Scholar

Berg, J., Campbell, P., Kiermer, V., Raikhel, N. and Sweet, D.. “Joint Statement on EPA Proposed Rule and Public Availability of Data.” Science 360, no. 6388 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau0116.Google Scholar

Thorp, H. H. et al. “Joint Statement on EPA Proposed Rule and Public Availability of Data.” Science 366, no. 6470 (2019): 2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3197.Google Scholar

Academy of Integrative Health & Medicine et al. “Public Health, Medical, Academic, and Scientific Groups Oppose EPA Transparency Rule.” News release, https://mcmprodaaas.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/EPA%20Transparency%20Rule%20FINAL.pdf?oNbdIjRo8Ick2LxdMeWaqWuYu4NM3unc.Google Scholar

Kirch, D. G., president and CEO, AAMC, et al. Re: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0025, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to Andrew R. Wheeler, acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. July 11, 2018.Google Scholar

Oreskes, N.. “Beware: Transparency Rule Is a Trojan Horse.” Nature, May 22, 2018. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05207-9.Google Scholar

Powell, A.. “Letter Opposes Possible EPA Shift.” Harvard Gazette, August 10, 2018. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/08/harvard-officials-hospital-leaders-call-on-epa-to-withdraw-transparency-rule-which-they-say-would-bar-use-of-best-science-data.Google Scholar

Cullen, A., chair, SAB Work Group on EPA Planned Actions for SAB Consideration of the Underlying Science. Preparations for Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB) Discussions of Proposed Rule: Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science RIN (2080-AA14). Submitted to Members of the Chartered SAB and SAB Liaisons. 2018.Google Scholar

Science Advisory Board. SAB Review of the Science Supporting EPA Planned Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler. 2019.Google Scholar

Bachmann, J., former associate director for Science/Policy in EPA’s Air Office. Statement of John Bachmann for the Public Meeting of the EPA Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB), Re: June 5–6 SAB Discussions about EPA Planned Actions and Their Supporting Science. Submitted to Science Advisory Board. June 5, 2019.Google Scholar

Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of EPA Proposed Rule: Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to E. S. Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-18-003. June 28, 2018.Google Scholar

Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Commentary on the Proposed Rule Defining the Scope of Waters Federally Regulated Under the Clean Water Act Submitted to A. R. Wheeler. EPA-SAB-20-002. February 27, 2020.Google Scholar

Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of the Scientific and Technical Basis of the EPA’s Proposed Rule titled The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-20-003. February 27, 2020.Google Scholar

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, External Review Draft. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-452/P-19-001. Research Triangle Park, NC: 2019. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/draft_policy_assessment_for_pm_naaqs_09-05-2019.pdf.Google Scholar

Davenport, C.. “Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Find Opposition Within: Staff Scientists.” New York Times, March 27, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/climate/trumps-environmental-rollbacks-staff-scientists.html.Google Scholar

Eilperin, J., Dawsey, J. and Dennis, B.. “White House Blocked Intelligence Agency’s Written Testimony Calling Climate Change ‘Possibly Catastrophic.’” Washington Post, June 8, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/08/white-house-blocked-intelligence-aides-written-testimony-saying-human-caused-climate-change-could-be-possibly-catastrophic.Google Scholar

Friedman, L.. “White House Tried to Stop Climate Science Testimony, Documents Show.” New York Times, June 8, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/climate/rod-schoonover-testimony.html.Google Scholar

Schoonover, R.. “The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security.” New York Times, July 30, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/opinion/trump-climate-change.html.Google Scholar

US House of Representatives. Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies. Subcommittee on Research and Technology (Committee on Science, Space, and Technology); Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight (Committee on Science, Space, and Technology) 2019.Google Scholar

US House of Representatives. When Science Gets Trumped: Scientific Integrity at the Department of the Interior. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Committee on Natural Resources. July 25, 2019.Google Scholar

Carper, T. R. et al. Letter to Trump re, Request for Documents Pertaining to Kevin Chmielewski’s Whistleblower Complaint. Submitted to President D. J. Trump. April 12, 2018.Google Scholar

Eilperin, J. and Dennis, B.. “EPA Watchdog Closes Two Probes into Scott Pruitt’s Conduct, Citing His Resignation.” Washington Post, November 30, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/29/epa-watchdog-closes-two-probes-into-scott-pruitts-conduct-citing-his-resignation.Google Scholar

Halpern, M., deputy director of Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists. Testimony at the Hearing on Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies. Submitted to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and Joint Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and Subcommittee on Research and Technology. July 17, 2019.Google Scholar

Rosenberg, A.. “The EPA’s Science Restrictions Go from Bad to Worse.” Scientific American, November 13, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-epas-science-restrictions-go-from-bad-to-worse/.Google Scholar

Union of Concerned Scientists. Comments in Disagreement with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft Replacement for the Clean Power Plan, the Proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355. October 31, 2018.Google Scholar

Union of Concerned Scientists et al. Comments on Quantifying and Monetizing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Environmental Impact Statement for Model Year 2022–2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Submitted to C. J. Tamm, Fuel Economy Division at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Docket: NHTSA-2017-0069. September 25, 2017.Google Scholar

Goldman, G.. “Here’s One More Political Assault on Public Health.” Scientific American, June 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/heres-one-more-political-assault-on-public-health.Google Scholar

The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks: Proposed Rules. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 85 and 86; 49 Code of Federal Regulations 523, 531, 533, 536 and 537. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 42986–43500 (August 24, 2018). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/24/2018-16820/the-safer-affordable-fuel-efficient-safe-vehicles-rule-for-model-years-2021-2026-passenger-cars-and.Google Scholar

The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks: Final Rule. 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 523, 531, 533, 536 and 537. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 85 Federal Register 84: 24174–25278 (April 30, 2020). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-04-30/pdf/2020-06967.pdf.Google Scholar

Bento, A. M. et al. “Flawed Analyses of US Auto Fuel Economy Standards.” Science 362, no. 6419 (December 7, 2018): 1119–1121. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav1458.Google Scholar

Knickmeyer, E.. “EPA Challenged Safety of Administration Mileage Freeze.” Associated Press, August 14, 2018. https://apnews.com/1a7551fca3294ec49029b93e994cd7f9.Google Scholar

Joselow, M.. “Researchers Decry ‘Misrepresented’ Findings in Fuel-Efficiency Rollback Plan.” E&E News, December 7, 2018. www.scientificamerican.com/article/researchers-decry-misrepresented-findings-in-fuel-efficiency-rollback-plan.Google Scholar

Tabuchi, H.. “The Oil Industry’s Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules.” New York Times, December 13, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html?auth=login-google.Google Scholar

Tabuchi, H.. “Climate Change Denialists Dubbed Auto Makers the ‘Opposition’ in Fight over Trump’s Emissions Rollback.” New York Times, July 2, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/climate/climate-deniers-auto-emissions-rollback.html.Google Scholar

Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 86 Federal Register 469–473 (January 6, 2021). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-06/pdf/2020-29179.pdf.Google Scholar

Supplemental Finding That It Is Appropriate and Necessary to Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 81 Federal Register 79 (April 25, 2016).Google Scholar

Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 US 497 (Supreme Court 2007).Google Scholar

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 US 743 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar

Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 86 Federal Register 469–493 (January 6, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/06/2020-29179/strengthening-transparency-in-pivotal-science-underlying-significant-regulatory-actions-and.Google Scholar

Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 515 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (D. Mont. 2021).Google Scholar

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2017.Google Scholar

Congressional Research Service. Clean Air Act Issues in the 115th Congress: In Brief. Report by J. E. McCarthy. R44744 (Washington, DC: 2018). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44744.pdf.Google Scholar

Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 US 743 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar

Sinden, A.. “Supreme Court Remains Skeptical of the ‘Cost–Benefit State.’” The Regulatory Review, September 26, 2016. www.theregreview.org/2016/09/26/sinden-cost-benefit-state/.Google Scholar

Clinton, W. J. Revised Executive Order 12,886 Regulatory Planning and Review. 58 Federal Register 190 (October 4, 1993). www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_12866.pdf.Google Scholar

Ackerman, F. and Heinzerling, L.. Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing. New York: New Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Fischhoff, B.. “The Realities of Risk–Cost–Benefit Analysis.” Science 350, no. 6260 (2015): 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa6516.Google Scholar

Arrow, K. J. et al. “Is There a Role for Benefit–Cost Analysis in Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation?” Science 272, no. 6398 (1996): 221–222. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204.Google Scholar

Brent, R.. Cost–Benefit Analysis and Health Care Evaluations. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2014.Google Scholar

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Further Developments and Policy Use. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris: 2018).Google Scholar

Sinden, A.. “The Cost–Benefit Boomerang.” American Prospect, July 25, 2019. https://prospect.org/economy/cost-benefit-boomerang.Google Scholar

Sinden, A.. “The Problem of Unquantified Benefits.” Environmental Law 49 (2019): 73–129.Google Scholar

American Petroleum Institute. API Recommends that the US Retain the NAAQS Ozone Standards: Executive Summary (March 13, 2015). www.api.org/~/media/Files/Policy/Ozone-NAAQS/API-Recommendations-NAAQS-Ozone-Executive-Summary.pdf.Google Scholar

Banerjee, N., Hasmeyer, D. and Song, L.. “For Oil Industry, Clean Air Fight Was Dress Rehearsal for Climate Denial.” Inside Climate News, June 6, 2016. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05062016/oil-industry-clean-air-fight-smog-los-angeles-dress-rehearsal-climate-change-denial-exxon.Google Scholar

Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 2018, 2019 and 2020 Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Washington, DC: 2019). www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-CATS-5899-REV_DOC-Draft2018_2019_2020Cost_BenefitReport11_20_2019.pdf.Google Scholar

Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 2013 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities (Washington, DC: 2013). www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/inforeg/inforeg/2013_cb/2013_cost_benefit_report-updated.pdf.Google Scholar

Porter, M. E. and van der Linde, C.. “Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, no. 4 (1995): 97–118.Google Scholar

Harrington, W., Morgenstern, R. D. and Nelson, P.. “On the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19, no. 2 (2000): 297–332.Google Scholar

Popp, D.. “Pollution Control Innovations and the Clean Air Act of 1990.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22, no. 4 (2003): 641–660.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Retrospective Study of the Costs of EPA Regulations: A Report of Four Case Studies. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, Environmental Protection Agency (2014). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-09/documents/ee-0575_0.pdf.Google Scholar

Bridbord, K. and Hanson, D.. “A Personal Perspective on the Initial Federal Health-based Regulation to Remove Lead from Gasoline.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117, no. 8 (2009): 1195–1201.Google Scholar

Newell, R. G. and Rogers, K.. “Leaded Gasoline in the United States: The Breakthrough of Permit Trading.” In Choosing Environmental Policy: Comparing Instruments and Outcomes in the United States and Europe, edited by Harrington, W., Morgenstern, R. and Sterner, T.. 175–191. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2004. Reprint.Google Scholar

Environmental Defense Fund. “Finding, Fixing Leaks is a Cost-Effective Way to Cut Oil and Gas Methane Emissions.” Environmental Defense Fund Fact Sheet, n.d. www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/ldar_fact_sheet_final.pdf?utm_source=forbes&utm_campaign=edf_methane_upd_dmt&utm_medium=cross-post&utm_id=1478794987&utm_content=br161110.Google Scholar

Feldman, H. J., senior director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at the American Petroleum Institute. Comment on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process” 83 Fed. Reg. 27,524 (June 13, 2018). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Economics. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107. April 13, 2018.Google Scholar

McGillis, J., Institute for Energy Research. Comments on Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in Rulemaking Process Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-Making 83 Fed. Reg. 27524–27528 (June 13, 2018). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0107-1244 RIN 2010-AA12. 2018.Google Scholar

Boyle, K. J. and Kotchen, M. J.. “Policy Brief – The Need for More (Not Less) External Review of Economic Analysis at the US EPA.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 13, no. 2 (2019): 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez006.Google Scholar

Boyle, K. J. and Kotchen, M.. “Retreat on Economies at the EPA.” Science 361, no. 6404 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav0896.Google Scholar

Belton, K. B. and Graham, J. D.. “Trump’s Deregulation Record: Is It Working?” Administrative Law Review 71, no. 4 (2019): 803–880. www.administrativelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ALR_71.4-Graham-Belton.pdf.Google Scholar

Improving Consistency and Transparency of Cost Considerations in Rulemaking: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 40 Code of Federal Regulations chapter undefined. Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 27524–27528 (June 13, 2018). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/06/13/2018-12707/increasing-consistency-and-transparency-in-considering-costs-and-benefits-in-the-rulemaking-process.Google Scholar

Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations. Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 247: 84130–84157 (December 23, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-27368/increasing-consistency-and-transparency-in-considering-benefits-and-costs-in-the-clean-air-act.Google Scholar

Rescinding the Rule on Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process: Interim Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 83. Environmental Protection Agency. 86 Federal Register 26406–26419 (May 14, 2021). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/14/2021-10216/rescinding-the-rule-on-increasing-consistency-and-transparency-in-considering-benefits-and-costs-in.Google Scholar

Biden, J. R.. E.O. 13990 Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. Executive Office of the President. 86 Federal Register 7037–7043 (January 20, 2021). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01765/protecting-public-health-and-the-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis.Google Scholar

Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation; Rescission or Revision of Certain Requirements: Final Rule. 43 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 3160 and 3170. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 83 Federal Register no. 189 (September 28, 2018). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-09-28/pdf/2018-20689.pdf.Google Scholar

Repeal of the Clean Power Plan; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations. Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 84 Federal Register 32520–32584 (September 6, 2018). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/08/2019-13507/repeal-of-the-clean-power-plan-emission-guidelines-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-existing.Google Scholar

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: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 63. Environmental Protection Agency (22 May 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/22/2020-08607/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-coal--and-oil-fired-electric-utility-steam.Google Scholar

Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation: Final Rule. 43 Code of Federal Regulations 3100, 3160, 3170. Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 81 Federal Register no. 223, 83008–83089 (November 18, 2016). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-11-18/pdf/2016-27637.pdf.Google Scholar

Castle, K. M. and Revesz, R. L.. “Environmental Standards, Thresholds, and the Next Battleground of Climate Change Regulations.” Minnesota Law Review 103 (2019): 1349–1437.Google Scholar

Institute for Policy Integrity. Brief by Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law As Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents in Michigan v. EPA, March 2015. https://policyintegrity.org/documents/SCOTUS_brief_MATS_March2015.pdf.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. EPA420-R-04-007 (2004).Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (March 2005).Google Scholar

National Research Council. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009. doi:10.17226/12209.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response Function for PM2.5-Related Mortality (Washington, DC: 2010). www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/Benefits/thresholdstsd.pdf.Google Scholar

Abt, E. R., Rodricks, J. V., Levy, J. I., Zeise, L. and Burke, T. A. “Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment.” Risk Analysis 30, no. 7 (2010): 1028–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01426.x.Google Scholar

Feldman, H. J., director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs at the American Petroleum Institute. Testimony Regarding EPA’s Proposal to Change the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Submitted to EPA Public hearings in Philadelphia. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. July 17, 2012.Google Scholar

Goodman, J. E., toxicologist at Gradient, an environmental consulting firm. Testimony on “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Proposed Rule” 78 Federal Register 3085. Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Public hearings in Philadelphia. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. July 17, 2012.Google Scholar

Lewis, M., Logomasini, A. and Yeatman, W.. First Steps for the Trump Administration: Champion Affordable Energy: Free Market Reforms to Protect the Environment and Promote Plentiful, Reliable Energy. Competitive Enterprise Institute (December 15, 2016). https://cei.org/sites/default/files/First%20Steps%20for%20the%20Trump%20Administration%20-%20Chamption%20Affordable%20Energy.pdf.Google Scholar

Furchtgott-Roth, D., senior fellow and director, Economics21 of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Flawed Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology. Submitted to testimony at the hearing by the Subcommittee on Superfund Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. October 21, 2015.Google Scholar

American Petroleum Institute et al. Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units, Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 34,830. Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2013–0602; FRL–9910-86-OAR. June 18, 2014.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Review of the Clean Power Plan: Proposal (Research Triangle Park, NC: 2017). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/ria_proposed-cpp-repeal_2017-10.pdf.Google Scholar

Graham, J. D. and Wiener, J. B.. Risk Versus Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: Guidance to Federal agencies on the Development of Regulatory Analysis As Required under Section 6(a)(3)(c) of Executive Order 12866, a Regulatory Planning and Review, the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, and a Variety of Related Authorities (Washington, DC: 2003). www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.Google Scholar

Perkins, J.. “The Case for Co-Benefits: Regulatory Impact Analyses, Michigan v. EPA, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.” 2015–16 Olaus and Adolph Murie Award-winning paper (co-winner), Stanford Law School (2016). https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-case-for-co-benefits-regulatory-impact-analyses-michigan-v-epa-and-the-environmental-protection-agencys-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards.Google Scholar

United States Sugar Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No 11-1108 (D.C. Cir. 2016).Google Scholar

Bakst, D.. “Will EPA Stop Its Abuse of Costly Pollution-Control ‘Co-Benefits’ Assessments?” Heritage Foundation Commentary, October 4, 2018. www.heritage.org/agriculture/commentary/will-epa-stop-its-abuse-costly-pollution-control-co-benefits-assessments.Google Scholar

Beaulier, S. and Sutter, D.. “The New ‘Benefits’ of Environmental Regulation.” American Energy Alliance, October 11, 2012. www.americanenergyalliance.org/2012/10/11/the-new-benefits-of-environmental-regulation.Google Scholar

Todd, M., chair of the Residual Risk Coalition (this coalition includes the American Petroleum Institute). Comments on “The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review,” 84 Fed. Reg. 2,670 (Feb. 7, 2019). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0794. April 17, 2019.Google Scholar

Supplemental Finding That It Is Appropriate and Necessary to Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 81 Federal Register 24419–24452 (April 25, 2016). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/04/25/2016-09429/supplemental-finding-that-it-is-appropriate-and-necessary-to-regulate-hazardous-air-pollutants-from.Google Scholar

Burtraw, D. and Keyes, A.. “10 Big Little Flaws in EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule.” Issue Brief 19-05. July 22, 2019. www.rff.org/publications/issue-briefs/10-big-little-flaws-in-epas-affordable-clean-energy-rule.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Repeal of the Clean Power Plan, and the Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units (Research Triangle Park, NC: 2019). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-06/documents/utilities_ria_final_cpp_repeal_and_ace_2019-06.pdf.Google Scholar

Driesen, D.. “Is Cost–Benefit Analysis Neutral?” University of Colorado Law Review 77, no. 2 (2006): 339–342.Google Scholar

McGartland, A. et al. “Estimating the Health Benefits of Environmental Regulations.” Science 357, no. 6350 (2017): 457–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam8204.Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, Environmental Protection Agency (December 17, 2010; updated May 2014). EPA 240-R-10-001. www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-08/documents/ee-0568-50.pdf.Google Scholar

Mazzota, M. et al. Non-monetary Benefits without Apology: The Economic Theory and Practice of Ecosystem Service Benefit Indicators. Northeast Agricultural and Resource Economics Association (Newport, RI: June 27–30, 2015).Google Scholar

Congressional Research Service. Clean Air Act Issues in the 116th Congress. Report by J. E. McCarthy, R. K. Lattanzio and K. C. Shouse (Washington, DC: 2019).Google Scholar

Goffman, J.. “MATS, Cost–Benefit Analysis, and the Appropriate and Necessary Finding.” Environmental Energy and Law Program (2018). https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2018/12/mats-cost-benefit-analysis-and-the-appropriate-and-necessary-finding.Google Scholar

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: Proposed Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 84 Federal Register 2670–2704 (February 7, 2019). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/07/2019-00936/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-coal–and-oil-fired-electric-utility-steam.Google Scholar

Roman, H. et al. “Evaluation of the Cardiovascular Effects of Methylmercury Exposures: Current Evidence Supports Development of a Dose–Response Function for Regulatory Benefits Analysis.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 5 (2011): 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003012.Google Scholar

Sunderland, E. et al. “Benefits of Regulating Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-Fired Utilities in the United States.” Environmental Science & Technology 50, no. 5 (February 5, 2016): 2117–2120. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00239.Google Scholar

Giang, A. and Selin, N.. “Benefits of Mercury Controls for the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, no. 2 (2015): 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514395113.Google Scholar

Edison Electric Institute et al. Request for Expeditious Completion of the Residual Risk and Technology Review per CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) by April 16, 2020. Submitted to W. L. Wehrum, assistant administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. July 10, 2018.Google Scholar

Brady, D. and Eilperin, J.. “EPA Overhauls Mercury Pollution Rule despite Opposition from Utilities.” Washington Post, April 17, 2020.Google Scholar

Beitsch, R.. “EPA’s Independent Science Board Says Agency Ignored Its Advice on Mercury Rule.” The Hill, December 31, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/476374-epas-independent-science-board-says-agency-ignored-their-advice-on+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d.Google Scholar

Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 508 F.3d 508 (9th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar

Government Accountability Office. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Development of Social Cost of Carbon Estimates. Report by J. A. Gómez GAO-14-663 (Washington, DC: 2014). www.gao.gov/assets/670/665016.pdf.Google Scholar

Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 16-1329 (D.C. Cir. 2017).Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866. Report by Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (Washington, DC: 2010).Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866 (Washington, DC: 2016).Google Scholar

American Petroleum Institute et al. Comments on “Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order No. 12866,” 78 Fed. Reg. 70,586 (Nov. 26, 2013). Submitted to H. Shelanski, administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Docket ID OMB-OMB-2013-0007. February 26, 2014.Google Scholar

Lewis, M. et al., Competitive Enterprise Institute and other organizations. Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order No. 12866. Submitted to H. Shelanski, administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Docket ID OMB-OMB-2013-0007. February 26, 2014.Google Scholar

American Energy Alliance et al. Statement in Support of the Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act of 2016. Submitted to E. Jenkins, Representative of West Virginia and Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. July 2016.Google Scholar

US House of Representatives. Hearing on at What Cost? Examining the Social Cost of Carbon. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 115th Congress, 1st Sess. February 28, 2017.Google Scholar

Trump, D. J.. Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule. 82 Federal Register 16093. 2017. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-restoring-rule-law-federalism-economic-growth-reviewing-waters-united-states-rule.Google Scholar

Bureau of Land Management. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rule to Suspend or Delay Certain Requirements of the 2016 Waste Prevention Rule. Docket ID: BLM-2017-0002 (2017).Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency. Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. Report by Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (2016).Google Scholar

Congressional Research Service. EPA’s Proposal to Repeal the Clean Power Plan: Benefits and Costs. Report by K. Shouse. R45119 (Washington, DC: 2018). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45119.pdf.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R.. “On Not Revisiting Official Discount Rates: Institutional Inertia and the Social Cost of Carbon.” American Economic Review 104, no. 5 (2014): 547–551.Google Scholar

Greenstone, M.. “Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon.” Presentation at the National Academies Fifth Meeting of the Committee on Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon. May 5, 2017.Google Scholar

Weitzman, M. L.. “Fat Tails and the Social Cost of Carbon.” American Economic Review 104, no. 5 (2014): 544–546. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.544.Google Scholar

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15). World Meteorological Organization (Geneva, Switzerland: 2018). www.ipcc.ch/sr15.Google Scholar

Kopp, R. E. et al. “Tipping Elements and Climate-Economic Shocks: Pathways Toward Integrated Assessment.” Earth’s Future 4, no. 8 (2016): 346–372.Google Scholar

Council of Economic Advisers. Discounting for Public Policy: Theory and Recent Evidence on the Merits of Updating the Discount Rate. White House (Washington, DC: 2017). https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/201701_cea_discounting_issue_brief.pdf.Google Scholar

Broome, J.. Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012.Google Scholar

Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M. and Miguel, E.. “Global Non-linear Effect of Temperature on Economic Production.” Nature 527 (2015): 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15725.Google Scholar

Stern, N.. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Cowen, T. and Parfit, D.. “Against the Social Discount Rate.” In Justice between Age Groups and Generations, edited by Fishkin, J. S. and Laslett, P.. 144–168. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Gardiner, S. M.. A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar

Clark, P. U. et al. “Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-millennial Climate and Sea-Level Change.” Nature Climate Change 6 (2016): 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2923.Google Scholar

Global Carbon Project. “Carbon Budget and Trends 2019” (2019). www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/index.htm.Google Scholar

Brown, D.. Climate Change Ethics: Navigating the Perfect Moral Storm. London, UK: Routledge, 2013.Google Scholar

Howard, P. and Sylvan, D.. The Economic Climate: Establishing Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change. Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law (2015). http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/EconomicClimateConsensus.pdf.Google Scholar

Howard, P. and Schwartz, J.. “Think Global: International Reciprocity as Justification for a Global Social Cost of Carbon.” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 42, no. S (2017): 203–294. https://doi.org/10.7916/cjel.v42iS.3734.Google Scholar

Revesz, R. L. et al. “The Social Cost of Carbon: A Global Imperative.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 11, no. 1 (2017): 172–173.Google Scholar

Gayer, T. and Viscusi, W. K.. “Determining the Proper Scope of Climate Change Policy Benefits in US Regulatory Analyses: Domestic versus Global Approaches.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 10, no. 2 (2016): 245–263.Google Scholar

Gayer, T. and Viscusi, W. K.. “Letter – The Social Cost of Carbon: Maintaining the Integrity of Economic Analysis – A Response to Revesz et al. (2017).” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 11, no. 1 (2017): 174–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rew021.Google Scholar

Reagan, R.. Statement on Signing the Montreal Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances. American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. April 5, 1988. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/253878.Google Scholar

Benedick, R. E.. Ozone Diplomacy New Directions in Safeguarding the Planet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Bush, G.. Statement on Signing the Instrument of Ratification for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. October 13, 1992. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/266987.Google Scholar

Zero Zone, Inc. v. United States Department of Energy, 832 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2016).Google Scholar

Jones, N.. “China Tops CO₂ Emissions.” Nature, June 20, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1038/news070618-9.Google Scholar

Burger, M. et al. “Legal Pathways to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions under Section 115 of the Clean Air Act.” Georgetown Environmental Law Review 28 (2016): 359–423.Google Scholar

Tollefson, J. and Weiss, K. R.. “Nations Adopt Historic Global Climate Accord: Agreement Commits World to Holding Warming ‘Well Below’ 2°C.” Nature 582, no. 7582 (2015): 315–317.Google Scholar

Dudley, S. and Mannix, B.. “The Social Cost of Carbon.” Engage: Journal of the Federalist Society Practice Group 15, no. 1 (June 24, 2014): 14–18.Google Scholar

Fraas, A. et al. “Social Cost of Carbon: Domestic Duty.” Science 351, no. 6273 (2016): 569. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.351.6273.569-b.Google Scholar

Rickie, K. et al. “Country-level Social Cost of Carbon.” Nature Climate Change 8 (2018): 895–900. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0282-y.Google Scholar

Government Accountability Office. The Federal System for Collecting Oil and Gas Revenues Needs Comprehensive Reassessment. Report by F. Rusco. GAO-08-691 (Washington, DC: 2008). www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-691.Google Scholar

Government Accountability Office. Federal, Oil and Gas Leases: Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce Greenhouse Gases. Report by F. Rusco. GAO-11-34 (Washington, DC: 2010). www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-34.Google Scholar

Ranger, R., senior policy advisor, Upstream. American Petroleum Institute’s Comments on “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation; Rescission or Revision of Certain Requirements,” 83 Fed. Reg. 7924 (Feb. 22, 2018). Submitted to B. Steed, deputy director of Programs and Policy, Bureau of Land Management. RIN 1004-AE53. April 23, 2018.Google Scholar

Todd, M., senior policy advisor, American Petroleum Institute. Statement for the Public Hearing on “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration Proposed Amendments to NSPSOOOOa,” 83 Fed. Reg. 52056-52107. Submitted to public hearing. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483. November 14, 2018.Google Scholar

Olsen, B. and Matthews, C. M.. “Trump Rollback of Methane Regulations Splits Energy Industry, Big Oil-and-Gas Companies Support Restrictions on the Powerful Greenhouse Gas, While Smaller Companies Worry about Cost.” Wall Street Journal, August 29, 2019. www.wsj.com/articles/trump-rollback-of-methane-regulations-splits-energy-industry-11567098375.Google Scholar

Alvarez, R. et al. “Assessment of Methane Emissions from the US Oil and Gas Supply Chain.” Science 361, no. 6398 (2018): 186–188. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186.Google Scholar

Krupnick, A. and Echarte, I.. The 2016 BLM Methane Waste Prevention Rule: Should It Stay or Should It Go? Resources for the Future (2018). https://media.rff.org/documents/RFF-Rpt-Oil26GasRegs-BLM20methane20rule.pdf.Google Scholar

Bureau of Land Management. Regulatory Impact Analysis for: Revisions to 43 CFR 3100 (Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing) and 43 CFR 3600 (Onshore Oil and Gas Operations) Additions of 43 CFR 3178 (Royalty-Free Use of Lease Production) and 43 CFR 3179 (Waste Prevention and Resource Conservation). Docket ID: BLM-2016-0001 (2016). www.regulations.gov/document?D=BLM-2016-0001-9127.Google Scholar

Bureau of Land Management. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rule to Rescind or Revise Certain Requirements of the 2016 Waste Prevention Rule. (Washington, DC: 2018).Google Scholar

Bennet, M., US senator for Colorado. “Bennet Introduces Bill to Lock in a Science-Based Method to Determine the Cost of Carbon Pollution.” News release, 2019. www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/6/bennet-introduces-bill-to-lock-in-a-science-based-method-to-determine-the-cost-of-carbon-pollution.Google Scholar

US Congress. Senate. Carbon Pollution and Transparency Act. S. 1745, 116th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in Senate June 5, 2019.Google Scholar

Roberts, D.. “A Closer Look at Washington’s Superb New 100% Clean Electricity Bill.” Vox, April 18, 2019. www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/18/18363292/washington-clean-energy-bill.Google Scholar

Kohler, J.. “‘Transformative,’ ‘Substantial,’ ‘Turducken’? Colorado Lawmakers Approve a Bevy of Energy Bills in 2019 Session.” Denver Post, May 19, 2019. www.denverpost.com/2019/05/19/colorado-clean-energy-legislature-xcel.Google Scholar

Climate Leadership Council. “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends.” Briefing by J. A. Baker III, M. Feldstein, T. Halstead, N. G. Mankiw, H. M. Paulson, Jr., G. P. Shultz, T. Stephenson and R. Walton. 2017.Google Scholar

US Congress. House. Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations Act of 2017. H.R. 3117, 115th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in House June 26, 2017.Google Scholar

US Congress. Senate. Transparency and Honesty in Energy Regulations. S. 1512, 115th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in Senate June 29, 2017.Google Scholar

Congressional Research Service. An Introduction to Judicial Review of Federal Agency Action. Report by J. P. Cole. R44699 (Washington, DC: 2016). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44699.pdf.Google Scholar

Congressional Research Service. A Brief Overview of Rulemaking and Judicial Review. Report by T. Garvey. R41546 (Washington, DC: 2017). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41546.pdf.Google Scholar

Heinzerling, L.. “Unreasonable Delays: The Legal Problems (So Far) of Trump’s Deregulatory Binge.” Harvard Law and Policy Review 12 (2018): 13–48.Google Scholar

Stanberry, R.. “The APA As an Environmental Law.” Environmental Law 49, no. 3 (2019). https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/28857-493stansberry.Google Scholar

Kassop, N.. “Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Policies: The Risks of Executive Branch Lawmaking That Fails to ‘Take Care’” In Presidential Leadership and the Trump Presidency, edited by Lamb, C. M. and Neiheisel, J. R.. 41–90. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.Google Scholar

Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, No. 17-1145 (D.C. Cir. 2017).Google Scholar

State of California, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al., No.3:17-cv-07187-WHO (District Court for the Northern District of California 2018).Google Scholar

Chevron USA., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 US 837 (Supreme Court 1984).Google Scholar

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 US 502 (Supreme Court 2009).Google Scholar

Indigenous Environmental Network v. US Department of State, 347 F. Supp. 3d 561, 591 (District Court of the District of Montana 2018).Google Scholar

Adair, K. E. and Akroyd, R. R.. “Tucson Herpetological Society v. Salazar Decision and its Progeny: A Move Away from Blind Deference to Agency Decision-making.” California Water Law & Policy Reporter, March 2012.Google Scholar

Buzbee, W. W.. “The Tethered President: Consistency and Contingency in Administrative Law.” Boston University Law Review 98 (2018): 1357–1442. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3084&context=facpub.Google Scholar

Cecot, C.. “Deregulatory Cost–Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Stability.” Duke Law Journal 68, no. 8 (2018–19): 1594–1650.Google Scholar

Buzbee, W. W.. “Deregulatory Splintering the Trump Administration and Administrative Law.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 94 (2019): 439–486.Google Scholar

Tucson Herpetological Society v. Salazar, 566 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2009).Google Scholar

Fisher, E., Pascual, P. and Wagner, W.. “Rethinking Judicial Review of Expert Agencies Symposium: Science Challenges for Law and Policy.” Texas Law Review 93 (2014–15): 1681–1722.Google Scholar

Wagner, W., Fisher, E. and Pascual, P.. “Whose Science? A New Era in Regulatory ‘Science Wars.’” Science 362, no. 6415 (2018): 636–639.Google Scholar

McGarity, T. O.. “Judicial Review of Scientific Rulemaking.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 9, no. 1 (1984): 97–106.Google Scholar

Kozel, R. J. and Pojanowski, J.. “Administrative Change.” UCLA Law Review 59 (2011): 112–169.Google Scholar

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc., 462 US 87 (Supreme Court 1983).Google Scholar

Kuhn., E. “Science and Deference: The ‘Best Available Science’ Mandate Is a Fiction in the Ninth Circuit.” Environmental Law Review Syndicate, 2016. http://elawreview.org/environmental-law-review-syndicate/science-and-deference-the-best-available-science-mandate-is-a-fiction-in-the-ninth-circuit.Google Scholar

Dana, D. and Barsa, M.. “Judicial Review in an Age of Hyper-Polarization and Alternative Facts.” San Diego Journal of Climate and Energy Law 9 (2017–18): 231–263. www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Judicial-Review-in-an-Age-of-Hyper-Polarization-and-Alternative-F.pdf.Google Scholar

California v. Bureau of Land Management, No 4:18-cv-00521 (9th Circ. 2020).Google Scholar

Gilmer, E.. “Trump Environmental Record Marked by Big Losses, Undecided Cases.” Bloomberg Law, January 11, 2021.Google Scholar

Jacobs, J. P. and King, P.. “Biden Races Courts for Chance to Torpedo Trump Water Rule.” E&E News, April 28, 2021.Google Scholar

Farber, D. A.. “Rethinking the Role of Cost–Benefit Analysis.” University of Chicago Law Review 76 (2009): 1355–1380.Google Scholar

Lautenberg, Frank R. Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act §6, Pub L No 114–182, 130 Stat 448, 460 (2016), codified at 15 USC § 2605.Google Scholar

Chestnut, L. G. and Mills, D. M.. “A Fresh Look at the Benefits and Costs of the US Acid Rain Program.” Journal of Environmental Management 77 no. 3 (2005): 252–266.Google Scholar

Gilmer, E.. “Trump’s 2-for-1 Regulations Order Survives States’ Legal Attack.” Bloomberg Law, April 2, 2020.Google Scholar

Whitman v. American Trucking Association, 531 US 457 (Supreme Court 2001).Google Scholar

Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar

30 U.S.C. § 225.Google Scholar

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Auto Mutual Insurance Co., 463 US 29 (Supreme Court 1983).Google Scholar

Congressional Research Service. Congress’s Authority to Influence and Control Executive Branch Agencies. Report by T. Garvey, legislative attorney and D. Sheffner, legislative attorney. R45442 (December 19, 2018). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45442.pdf.Google Scholar

Gerrard, M. B.. “Emergency Exemptions from Environmental Laws.” In Law in the Time of COVID-19, edited by Pistor, K.. New York: Columbia Law School, 2020.Google Scholar

Michaels, J. D.. Constitutional Coup: Privatization’s Threat to the American Republic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.Google Scholar

Emerson, B.. The Public’s Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.Google Scholar

Southworth, A.. Lawyers of the Right: Professionalizing the Conservative Coalition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Teles, S. M.. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.Google Scholar

Hollis-Brusky, A.. Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar

Avery, M. and McLaughlin, D.. The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back from Liberals. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2013.Google Scholar

Barnes, R. and Mufson, S.. “White House Counts on Kavanaugh in Battle against ‘Administrative State.’” Washington Post, August 12, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/brett-kavanaugh-and-the-end-of-the-regulatory-state-as-we-know-it/2018/08/12/22649a04-9bdc-11e8-8d5e-c6c594024954_story.html.Google Scholar

Metzger, G. E.. “1930s Redux: The Administrative State under Siege.” Harvard Law Review 131, no. 1 (November 10, 2017): 1–95. https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/1930s-redux-the-administrative-state-under-siege.Google Scholar

Southworth, A.. “Lawyers and the Conservative Counterrevolution.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 4 (September 24, 2018): 1698–1728. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12363.Google Scholar

Squillace, M. et al. “Presidents Lack the Authority to Abolish or Diminish National Monuments.” Virginia Law Review Online 103 (June 9, 2017): 55–71. www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/Hecht%20PDF.pdf.Google Scholar

Hein, J.. “Monumental Decisions: One-Way Levers Towards Preservation in the Antiquities Act and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.” Environmental Law 48, no. 125 (April 11, 2018): 126–166.Google Scholar

Trump, D. J.. Presidential Executive Order on Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery From the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities. Executive Order 13927, 85 Federal Register 35165–35170 (2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/09/2020-12584/accelerating-the-nations-economic-recovery-from-the-covid-19-emergency-by-expediting-infrastructure.Google Scholar

Davenport, C. and Friedman, L.. “Trump, Citing Pandemic, Moves to Weaken Two Key Environmental Protections.” New York Times, June 4, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/climate/trump-environment-coronavirus.html.Google Scholar

Reeves, D.. “Trump Suspends Environmental Rules for Infrastructure, Citing Pandemic.” Energy Washington Week, June 4, 2020. https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-suspends-environmental-rules-infrastructure-citing-pandemic.Google Scholar

Glicksman, R. L.. “The Firm Constitutional Foundation and Shaky Political Future of Environmental Cooperative Federalism.” In Controversies in American Federalism and Public Policy, edited by Banks, C. P.. 132–150. London, UK: Routledge, 2018.Google Scholar

Duncan, D. and Ellis, C.. “Clean Water Act Section 401: Balancing States’ Rights and the Nation’s Need for Energy Infrastructure.” Hastings Environmental Law Journal 25, no. 2 (2019): 235–262. https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1568&context=hastings_environmental_law_journal.Google Scholar

Congressional Research Service. Clean Water Act Section 401: Background and Issues. Report by C. Copeland, specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy. 97–488 (Washington, DC: 2015). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-488.pdf.Google Scholar

Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 42210–42287 (July 13, 2020). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-06/documents/pre-publication_version_of_the_clean_water_act_section_401_certification_rule_508.pdf.Google Scholar

Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Objection to “Clean Water Act Section 401 Guidance for Federal Agencies, States and Authorized Tribes” Issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Submitted to A. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. July 25, 2019.Google Scholar

Carper, T., ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Duckworth, T., ranking member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife, and Booker, C. A., ranking member of the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste, Management, and Regulatory Oversight. Comments on Proposed Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule. Submitted to A. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. October 21, 2019.Google Scholar

Parenteau, P.. “EPA’s Latest Power Grab Is Aimed at States’ Rights.” The Hill, August 14, 2019. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/457426-epas-latest-power-grab-is-aimed-at-states-rights.Google Scholar

Nasmith, M., staff attorney of Earthjustice, et al. Comments on EPA Proposed Rule Updating Regulations on Water Quality Certification. Submitted to A. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. October 21, 2019.Google Scholar

PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 US 700 (Supreme Court 1994).Google Scholar

S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 US 370 (Supreme Court 2006).Google Scholar

Buzbee, W. W.. “Agency Statutory Abnegation in the Deregulatory Playbook.” Duke Law Journal 68, no. 8 (2019): 1509–1591. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol68/iss8/1.Google Scholar

Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation: Final Rule. 43 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 3100, 3160 and 3170. I. Bureau of Land Management. 81 Federal Register 83008–83089 www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-11-18/pdf/2016-27637.pdf.Google Scholar

Wyoming v. US Department of Interior, No. 2:16-CV-0280-SWS, 2017 WL 161428 (D. Wyo. Jan. 16, 2017).Google Scholar

Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation; Rescission or Revision of Certain Requirements: Final Rule. 43 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 3160 and 3170. Bureau of Land Management. 83 Federal Register 49184–49214. www.regulations.gov/document?D=BLM-2018-0001-223600.Google Scholar

League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (D. Alaska 2019), vacated and remanded sub nom. League of Conservation Voters v. Biden, 843 F. Appendix 937 (9th Cir. 2021).Google Scholar

California v. Bernhardt, 472 F. Supp. 3d 573 (N.D. Cal 2020).Google Scholar

County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar

Heinzerling, L.. “Opinion Analysis: The Justices’ Purpose-full Reading of the Clean Water Act.” SCOTUSblog. 2020. www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/opinion-analysis-opinion-analysis-the-justices-purpose-full-reading-of-the-clean-water-act.Google Scholar

California v. US Bureau of Land Management, No. 18-CV-00521-HSG, 2018 WL 3439453 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2018).Google Scholar

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 549 US 497 (Supreme Court 2007).Google Scholar

Sherman, M.. “Roberts, Trump Spar in Extraordinary Scrap over Judges.” Associated Press News, November 21, 2018. https://apnews.com/c4b34f9639e141069c08cf1e3deb6b84.Google Scholar

Baum, L. and Devins, N.. The Company They Keep: How Partisan Divisions Came to the Supreme Court. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.Google Scholar

Cannon, J. Z.. Environment in the Balance: The Green Movement and the Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.Google Scholar

Revesz, R. L.. “Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the DC Circuit.” Virginia Law Review Online 83, no. 8 (November 1997): 1717–1772. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073657.Google Scholar

Epstein, L., Landes, W. M. and Posner, R. A.. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. et al. Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. and Miles, T. J.. “Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An Empirical Investigation of Chevron.” University of Chicago Law Review 73 (June 2006): 1–55.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C.. “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” Yale Law Journal 115, no. 371 (2004): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/20455706.Google Scholar

Lawrence, O., Gostin, J. D. and Hodge, J. G. Jr. “Substantial Shifts in Supreme Court Health Law Jurisprudence.” JAMA 320, no. 14 (October 9, 2018): 1431–1432. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.12331.Google Scholar

Hodge, J. G., Jr. et al. “Public Health Law and Policy Implications: Justice Kavanaugh.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 47, no. 2 suppl. (July 12, 2019): 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110519857319.Google Scholar

Gostin, L. O., Parmet, W. E. and Rosenbaum, S.. “Health Policy in the Supreme Court and a New Conservative Majority.” JAMA 324, no. 21 (2020): 2157–2158. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.21987.Google Scholar

Freeman, J.. “What Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Will Mean for Joe Biden’s Climate Plan.” Vox, October 26, 2020. www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/21526207/amy-coney-barrett-senate-vote-environmental-law-biden-climate-plan.Google Scholar

Edsall, T. B.. “The Right’s Relentless Supreme Court Justice Picking Machine.” New York Times, October 1, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/10/01/opinion/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html.Google Scholar

Ryan, E.. “Environmentalists: Brace for Preemption, Propertization, and Problems of Political Scale.” In Environmental Law, Disrupted, edited by Owley, J. and Hirokawa, K.. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute, 2019.Google Scholar

Heinzerling, L.. “The Power Cannons.” William & Mary Law Review 58, no. 6 (October 7, 2017): 1932–2004. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757770.Google Scholar

Beerman, J. M.. “The Never-Ending Assault on the Administrative State.” Notre Dame Law Review 93, no. 4 (July 2018): 1599–1652.Google Scholar

Calabresi, S. G. and Lawson, G.. “The Depravity of the 1930s and the Modern Administrative State.” Notre Dame Law Review 94, no. 2 (January 2019): 821–866. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=ndlr.Google Scholar

Metzger, G. E.. “The Roberts Court and Administrative Law.” Supreme Court Review, no. 1 (2020): 1–71.Google Scholar

Rodriguez, D. B. and Weingast, B. R.. “Engineering the Modern Administrative State, Part I: Political Accommodation and Legal Strategy in the New Deal Era.” Northwestern Public Law Research Paper, no. 19-03 (February 15, 2019): 1–65.Google Scholar

Galperin, J. “The Death of Administrative Democracy.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82, no. 1 (2020).Google Scholar

Mortenson, J. D. and Bagley, N.. “Delegation at the Founding.” University of Michigan Public Law Research Paper, no. 658 (December 31, 2019). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3512154.Google Scholar

Mortenson, J. D. and Bagley, N.. “There’s No Historical Justification for One of the Most Dangerous Ideas in American Law.” The Atlantic, May 26, 2020. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/nondelegation-doctrine-orliginalism/612013.Google Scholar

Bazelon, E.. “How Will Trump’s Supreme Court Remake America?” New York Times, February 27, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/magazine/how-will-trumps-supreme-court-remake-america.html.Google Scholar

Mashaw, J. L.. Creating the Administrative Constitution: The Lost One Hundred Years of American Administrative Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Novak, W.. “Law and the Social Control of American Capitalism.” Emory Law Journal 60 (2010): 377–405. https://law.emory.edu/elj/_documents/volumes/60/2/symposium/novak.pdf.Google Scholar

Hacker, J. S. and Pierson, P.. American Amnesia: How the War on Government Led Us to Forget What Made America Prosper. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017.Google Scholar

Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (Supreme Court 1905).Google Scholar

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (Supreme Court 1937).Google Scholar

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar

Fligstein, N. and Roehrkasse, A. F.. “The Causes of Fraud in the Financial Crisis of 2007 to 2009: Evidence from the Mortgage-Backed Securities Industry.” American Sociological Review 81, no. 4 (June 23, 2016): 617–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416645594.Google Scholar

Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (Supreme Court 2019).Google Scholar

Kennedy, L., McCoy, P. A. and Bernstein, E.. “The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Financial Regulation for the 21st Century.” Cornell Law Review 98, no. 5 (2012): 1141–1176.Google Scholar

McCoy, P. A.. “Inside Job: The Assault on the Structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” Minnesota Law Review 103, no. 6 (2018): 2543–2615.Google Scholar

Sharkey, C. M.. “The Administrative State and the Common Law: Regulatory Substitutes or Complements.” Emory Law Journal 65, no. 6 (2016): 1705–1740. https://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-65/issue-6/articles-essays/administrative-state-common-law-substitutes-complements.html.Google Scholar

PHH Corporation, et al., v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No 15-1177 (D.C. Cir. 2016).Google Scholar

Sarkar, S. and Rosenthal, J. A.. “PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Financial Fairness and Administrative Anxiety.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online 166, no. 14 (2018): 265–272. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review_online/vol166/iss1/14.Google Scholar

Harrington, S.. “Kavanaugh on the Executive Branch: PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” SCOTUSblog, 2018. www.scotusblog.com/2018/08/kavanaugh-on-the-executive-branch-phh-corp-v-consumer-financial-protection-bureau.Google Scholar

Fallon, R. H.. “Three Symmetries between Textualist and Purposivist Theories of Statutory Interpretation – and the Irreducible Roles of Values and Judgment within Both.” Cornell Law Review 99, no. 4 (May 2014): 685–734. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4628&context=clr.Google Scholar

Kaswan, A.. “Our New Pro-Liberty Justice–and What That Means for Environmental Law.” Trends 50, no. 3 (January/February 2019): 4–7. www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/trends/2018-2019/january-february-2019/our-new-pro-liberty.Google Scholar

Congressional Research Service. Chevron Deference: A Primer. Report by V. C. Brannon, legislative attorney and J. P. Cole, legislative attorney. R44954 (Washington, DC: September 19, 2017). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44954.pdf.Google Scholar

Congressional Research Service. Deference and its Discontents: Will the Supreme Court Overrule Chevron? Report by V. C. Brannon, legislative attorney and J. P. Cole, legislative attorney. LSB10204 (Washington, DC: October 11, 2018). https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10204.pdf.Google Scholar

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 467 US 837 (Supreme Court 1984).Google Scholar

Congressional Research Service. The DC Circuit Rejects EPA’s Mercury Rules: New Jersey v. EPA. RS22817 (Washington, DC: April 9, 2008). www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22817.html.Google Scholar

Morales, N.. “New Jersey v. Environmental Protection Agency.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 (2009): 263–282. https://harvardelr.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/07/33.1-Morales.pdf.Google Scholar

Pojanowski, J. A.. “Without Deference.” Missouri Law Review 81 (February 24, 2017): 1076–1094.Google Scholar

Siegel, J. R.. “The Constitutional Case for Chevron Deference.” Vanderbilt Law Review 71, no. 3 (2018): 937–993.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R.. “Chevron As Law.” Georgetown Law Journal (January 9, 2019): 1–61.Google Scholar

Take Back the Court. The Roberts Court Would Likely Strike Down Climate Change Legislation. Report by S. Moyn and A. Belkin (September 2019). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ce33e8da6bbec0001ea9543/t/5d7d429025734e4ae9c92070/1568490130130/Supreme+Court+Will+Overturn+Climate+Legislation+FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar

Environmental Law Institute. “Challenges to Environmental Protection in the Courts Continued.” www.eli.org/constitution-courts-and-legislation/challenges-environmental-protection-courts-continued#commerce.Google Scholar

Biber, E. and O’Dea, E.. “Is the Endangered Species Act Constitutional? How the Utah Prairie Dog Case May Impact California.” State Bar of California Environmental Law News 24, no. 1 (Summer 2015).Google Scholar

Biber, E.. “The ESA and the Commerce Clause.” Legal Planet, 2014. https://legal-planet.org/2014/11/18/the-esa-and-the-commerce-clause.Google Scholar

Dunec, J. L.. “Book Review: Global Chemical Control Handbook: A Guide to Chemical Management Programs, Lynn L. Bergeson, ed.” Review of Natural Resources & Environment (Spring 2016): 61–62.Google Scholar

Parker, B., executive director at Earthjustice. The Commerce Clause and the Environment. Analysis for Judging the Environment (2015). www.judgingtheenvironment.org/library/reports_analysis/the-commerce-clause-and-the-environment.pdf.Google Scholar

Kendall, D. T. and Lord, C. P.. “The Takings Project: A Critical Analysis and Assessment of the Progress So Far.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 25, no. 3 (May 1, 1998): 509–587. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=ealr.Google Scholar

Pollack, J.. “The Takings Project Revisited: A Critical Analysis of This Expanding Threat to Environmental Law.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 44 (2020): 235–278.Google Scholar

Mikva, A.. “The Wooing of Our Judges.” New York Times, August 28, 2000. www.nytimes.com/2000/08/28/opinion/the-wooing-of-our-judges.html.Google Scholar

Barnhizer, D.. “On the Make: Campaign Funding and the Corrupting of the American Judiciary.” Catholic University Law Review 50, no. 2 (Winter 2001): 361–428.Google Scholar

Wheeler, R.. “How Close Is President Trump to His Goal of Record-Setting Judicial Appointments?” Brookings Institution Blog, May 5, 2020. www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/05/05/how-close-is-president-trump-to-his-goal-of-record-setting-judicial-appointments.Google Scholar

Nevitt, M.. “The Remaking of the Supreme Court Implications for Climate Change Litigation and Regulation.” Cardozo Law Review 42, no. N (2020): 101–115.Google Scholar

Hulse, C.. “Protégé Confirmed, McConnell Is One Judge Closer to His Goal.” Washington Post, June 19, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/mcconnell-courts-justin-walker.html.Google Scholar

Zengerle, J.. “How the Trump Administration Is Remaking the Courts.” New York Times, August 22, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/magazine/trump-remaking-courts-judiciary.html.Google Scholar

Montgomery, D.. “Conquerors of the Courts.” Washington Post Magazine, January 2, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/01/02/feature/conquerors-of-the-courts.Google Scholar

Rao, N.. “Administrative Collusion: How Delegation Diminishes the Collective Congress.” New York University Law Review 90, no. 5 (October 16, 2015): 1463–1526.Google Scholar

Rao, N.. “The Trump Administration’s Deregulation Efforts Are Saving Billions of Dollars.” Washington Post, October 17, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administration-is-deregulating-at-breakneck-speed/2018/10/17/09bd0b4c-d194-11e8-83d6-291fcead2ab1_story.html.Google Scholar

Revesz, R. L.. “Destabilizing Environmental Regulation: The Trump Administration’s Concerted Attack on Regulatory Analysis.” Ecology Law Quarterly 47 (2020): 887–956.Google Scholar

Frazin, R.. “Court Strikes Down EPA Suspension of Obama-Era Greenhouse Gas Rule.” The Hill, April 7, 2020. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/491568-court-strikes-down-epa-suspension-of-obama-era-hfc-rule.Google Scholar

Gerhardt, M. J. and Painter, R. W.. “Majority Rule and the Future of Judicial Selection.” Wisconsin Law Review 2017, no. 2 (2017): 263–284.Google Scholar

Ruiz, R. R. et al. “Trump Stamps GOP Imprint on the Courts.” New York Times, March 15, 2020. https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/03/15/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf.Google Scholar

Federalist Society. “About Us.” 2020. https://fedsoc.org/about-us.Google Scholar

Hollis-Brusky, A.. “‘It’s the Network’: The Federalist Society As a Supplier of Intellectual Capital for the Supreme Court.” In Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, edited by Sarat, A.. 137–178. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, 2013.Google Scholar

Scherer, N. and Miller, B.. “The Federalist Society’s Influence on the Federal Judiciary.” Political Research Quarterly 62, no. 2 (May 1, 2009): 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908317030.Google Scholar

González, J., Goodman, A. and Lipton, E.. “Inside How the Federalist Society & Koch Brothers Are Pushing for Trump to Reshape Federal Judiciary.” Democracy Now!, March 21, 2017. www.democracynow.org/2017/3/21/inside_how_the_federalist_society_koch.Google Scholar

Lipton, E. and Peters, J.. “Conservatives Press Overhaul in the Judiciary.” New York Times, March 19, 2017.Google Scholar

O’Harrow, R., Jr. and Boburg, S.. “The Activist behind the Push to Reshape US Courts.” Washington Post, May 21, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/leonard-leo-federalists-society-courts.Google Scholar

Whitehouse, S., senator, and Durbin, R. J., senator. Request for Communications at the Department of Justice Pertaining to Mr. Leo Involvement in Potential, Actual, or Suggested Judicial Nominations. Submitted to Attorney General W. Barr. March 4, 2020.Google Scholar

Brennan Center for Justice. Who Pays for Judicial Races? The Politics of Judicial Elections 2015–16. Report by A. Bannon (December 14, 2017). www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/who-pays-judicial-races-politics-judicial-elections-2015-16.Google Scholar

Fang, L. and Surgey, N.. “Koch Document Reveals Laundry List of Policy Victories Extracted from the Trump Administration.” The Intercept, February 25, 2018. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/25/koch-brothers-trump-administration/.Google Scholar

Pienta, A.. Update to Report on “The Federalist Society’s Takeover of George Mason University’s Public Law School” (December 2018). https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5400da69e4b0cb1fd47c9077/t/5c1d302b4fa51a38153ac07e/1545416751164/Update+to+Report+on+Federalist+Society+Takeover+of+GMU+Law+12+17+2018.pdf.Google Scholar

Pienta, A.. New Evidence Suggests Chicago Billionaire “Closely Allied” with the Koch Brothers and Implicated in Funding Climate-Change Denial and Islamophobia Is Anonymous “Dark Money” Donor behind Renaming of George Mason University’s Law School (December 16, 2019). https://medium.com/@acaalim/new-evidence-suggests-chicago-billionaire-closely-allied-with-the-koch-brothers-and-implicated-2abc9bcbd102.Google Scholar

Mayer, J.. “How Mitch McConnell Became Trump’s Enabler-in-Chief.” New Yorker Magazine, April 12, 2020. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-mitch-mcconnell-became-trumps-enabler-in-chief.Google Scholar

Ziblatt, D. and Levitsky, S.. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown, 2018.Google Scholar

Frum, D.. Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republican. New York: Harper Collins, 2018.Google Scholar

Stevens, S.. It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump. New York: Knopf, 2020.Google Scholar

Annenberg Public Policy Center. “Most Americans Trust the Supreme Court, But Think It Is ‘Too Mixed Up in Politics.’” News release, 2019, www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/most-americans-trust-the-supreme-court-but-think-it-is-too-mixed-up-in-politics.Google Scholar

Staff to Sheldon Whitehouse. “Senate Democrats Request Documents Related to Leonard Leo’s Work Leading Trump Administration Judicial Selections.” News release, March 5, 2020, www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senate-dems-request-docs-related-to-leonard-leos-work-leading-trump-admin-judicial-selections-say-leo-hand-picked-trump-judges-while-raking-in-undisclosed-sums-from-related-advocacy-groupsa-potential-conflict-of-interest-and-violation-of-federal-ethics-law.Google Scholar

Whitehouse, S.. “Dark Money and US Courts: The Problem and Solutions.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 57, no. 2 (2020): 273–301. https://harvardjol.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2020/05/Sen.-Whitehouse_Dark-Money.pdf.Google Scholar

Foran, C. and Barrett, T.. “Senate Passes Sweeping Conservation Legislation in Bipartisan Vote.” CNN Politics, June 17, 2020. www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/politics/conservation-legislation-senate/index.html.Google Scholar

US Congress. House. Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2019. H.R. 3972, 116th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in House August 15, 2019.Google Scholar

Coglianese, C. and Scheffler, G.. “What Congress’s Repeal Efforts Can Teach Us about Regulatory Reform.” Administrative Law Review Accord 3 (November 29, 2017): 43–58.Google Scholar

Meyer, R.. “The EPA Needs Lots of Money to Gut Itself.” The Atlantic, March 20, 2017. www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/the-paradox-of-defunding-the-epa/520002.Google Scholar

Freeman, J. and Vermeule, A.. “Massachusetts v. EPA: From Politics to Expertise.” Supreme Court Review 2007 (2007): 51–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/655170.Google Scholar

Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (Supreme Court 2006).Google Scholar

Wittenberg, A.. “Clean Water Rule: Will Scalia’s Dictionary Haunt Trump’s WOTUS Overhaul?” E&E News, May 15, 2017. www.eenews.net/stories/1060054554+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca.Google Scholar

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 US 302 (Supreme Court 2014).Google Scholar

Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, 572 US 489 (Supreme Court 2014).Google Scholar

Denniston, L.. “Opinion Analysis: Paying for Blocking Ill Winds.” SCOTUSblog, 2014.Google Scholar

Serfess, A.. “EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, LP: Supreme Court Upholds Transport Rule – Third Time’s a Charm for Good Neighbor Provision Enforcement.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 28, no. 1 (2014): 115–126.Google Scholar

Panama Refining Company v. Ryan, 293 US 388 (Supreme Court 1935).Google Scholar

ALA Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, 295 US 495 (Supreme Court 1935).Google Scholar

Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 US 457 (Supreme Court 2001).Google Scholar

Hall, J.. “The Gorsuch Test: Gundy v. United States, Limiting the Administrative State, and the Future of Nondelegation.” Duke Law Journal 70, no. 1 (March 9, 2020): 175–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3550906.Google Scholar

Sohoni, M.. “Opinion Analysis: Court Refuses to Resurrect Nondelegation Doctrine.” SCOTUSblog, 2019. www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-court-refuses-to-resurrect-nondelegation-doctrine.Google Scholar

Farber, D.. “Just in From the Supreme Court.” Legal Planet, 2019. https://legal-planet.org/2019/11/25/just-in-from-the-supreme-court.Google Scholar

Farber, D.. “Justice Gorsuch Versus the Administrative State.” Center for Progressive Reform Blog, 2019. http://progressivereform.org/cpr-blog/justice-gorsuch-versus-the-administrative-state.Google Scholar

Tortorice, M. D.. “Nondelegation and the Major Questions Doctrine: Displacing Interpretive Power.” Buffalo Law Review 67, no. 4 (August 1, 2019): 1075–1131.Google Scholar

United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 US 549 (Supreme Court 1995).Google Scholar

Rancho Viejo LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003).Google Scholar

People for Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. United States Fish & Wildlife, 852 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. 2017).Google Scholar

Blumm, M. C.. “Defending the Constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act: The Case of the Utah Prairie Dog.” On the Merits (Washington Legal Foundation), June 5, 2015. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2615357.Google Scholar

May, J. R.. “Healthcare, Environmental Law, and the Supreme Court: An Analysis under the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Tax and Spending Clauses.” Environmental Law 43, no. 2 (2013): 233–254.Google Scholar

Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 US 587 (Supreme Court 1936).Google Scholar

Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (Supreme Court 2017).Google Scholar

Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (Supreme Court 2019).Google Scholar

King v. Burwell, 576 US 473 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar

United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, 140 S. Ct. 1837 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar

Kitrosser, H.. “Accountability in the Deep State.” UCLA Law Review 65 (2018): 1532–1550.Google Scholar

Paul v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 342 (Supreme Court 2019).Google Scholar

Peterson, C. L. “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Law Enforcement: An Empirical Review.” Tulane Law Review 90 (2015): 1057–1112.Google Scholar

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar

Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142, 1149 (10th Cir. 2016).Google Scholar

Manning, J. F.. “What Divides Textualists from Purposivists?” Columbia Law Review 106 (2006): 70–111.Google Scholar

Krishnakumar, A. S.. “Backdoor Purposivism.” Duke Law Journal 69 (2020): 1275–1352.Google Scholar

Michigan v. EPA, 576 US 743 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (Supreme Court 2020).Google Scholar

Calabrese, S.. “Trump Might Try to Postpone the Election. That’s Unconstitutional.” New York Times, July 30, 2020.Google Scholar

Scher, B.. “The GOP Traded Its Principles for Conservative Judges.” Washington Post, July 5, 2020.Google Scholar

Posner, R. A.. “The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia.” New Republic, August 24, 2012.Google Scholar

Segall, E.. Originalism as Faith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018.Google Scholar

Whittington, K. E. and Iuliano, J.. “The Myth of the Nondelegation Doctrine.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165, no. 2 (2017): 379–431.Google Scholar

SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu,138 S. Ct. 1348, 1358–59 (Supreme Court 2018).Google Scholar

New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008).Google Scholar

Koch Seminar Network. Efforts in Government: Advancing Principled Public Policy. n.d. www.documentcloud.org/documents/4364737-Koch-Seminar-Network.html.Google Scholar