Sean Donahue

My scintillating content may be found at: seanhoedonahue@bsky.social

On the latest effort by fossil friends -- supported by amicus US Chamber of Commerce, which is filled with companies that support climate action -- to block even the most conventional controls on emissions from our biggest sources. legal-planet.org/2024/08/23/cle…

How about a constitutional amendment to establish what we thought was established in 1787: that the President is not above the law?

@JohnDWalke 100 percent

@jacklienke @nyulaw @PolicyIntegrity A lot to process for some of us who came to think of you as definitional of the IPI's ultra-talented but also ultra-modest style, but a boon for the Law Huskies!

But this “Chevron-violates-the-APA” ruling preserves something important: Going forward, Congress may still provide for deferential judicial review -- a position that the Article III-based theory for overturning Chevron favored by Justice Gorsuch would not have.

The Court has corrected the "nitrous oxide" references in the Good Neighbor decision. In the coming days, I'll be noting add'l errors that should prompt more far-reaching changes. (Seriously, EPA should prevail -- as the Act recognizes, we need controls on interstate pollution).

Justice Gorsuch's opinion refers five times to "nitrous oxide" (aka laughing gas) rather than the entirely different chemical compound -- smog-causing "nitrogen oxides" -- actually at issue in the case.

There are far more serious problems with today's decision in the Ohio v. EPA staying EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, but ...

The unselfishness and humbleness of this team is an example for anyone that plays any sport! So proud of you @celtics congrats to everyone from top to bottom! Congrats Al!! #humblydone #nbafinals #celtics #platanopower #banner18 #🇩🇴🇩🇴🇩🇴

Make it make sense. Fossil fuel power plants cause about 1/4 of U.S.CO2 emissions. And the industry *seemed* to support EPA’s efforts to cut them. Now this📷 from @Edison_Electric, which reps companies like @SCE @portlandgeneral @xcelenergy @Exelon?!?📷 eenews.net/articles/ediso…

@kirti_datla Or at least a hippodrome ...

@TheMagFields Whose picture was on the shirts 4 members of the band were wearing tonight?

@lawrencehurley This discovery was presaged by Professor Berman's demonstration in this 2009 article that it is also bunk: nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-…

"Is originalism bullshit?" a law professor asks: nbcnews.com/politics/supre…

Thread on Good Neighbor argument from the amazing Kirti Datla x.com/kirti_datla/st…

@JasonRylander @OrinKerr @CassSunstein Anecdotal to be sure, but during law school I was his sole research assistant for a while, and I can attest that I did nothing of significance, and certainly not ghost-writing! All I remember doing was trying to get him to change "spectre" to "specter" because this is America.

@OrinKerr @CassSunstein Did he write them? I mean no disrespect but a huge chuck of that work would have to be generated by research assistants, right? Or he is just superhuman.

Take a moment to appreciate the absolutely incredible productivity of @CassSunstein. In addition to all of his books, he has 380 papers posted on SSRN. (Yes, 380!) And in the last year alone, he has posted 21 new papers. That's a new paper every 17 days. Just amazing.

@chris_j_walker @ProfRRothschild ... and that when agencies adopt a regulatory definition of a statutory term per a statutory direction to do so (which Relentless petrs say is ok) ... that isn't "interpretation"

@chris_j_walker @ProfRRothschild Strong claim ... there were lots. But these are excellent candidates. Also, he claim that the Constitution confers on judges alone the power authoritatively to interpret statutes ...

Two least persuasive points from today's #SCOTUS arguments on whether to overrule Chevron: (1) Chevron deference is the reason why Congress isn't legislating on major questions; and (2) lower courts will find more consistency and administrability if SCOTUS ends Chevron.

@dahawk7843 Paul Clement made a big deal of this -- it's an outright error, and addressed in our amicus brief.

@seantankerous Right. APA was not mentioned for the same reason Billboard magazine’s top 40 list was not mentioned.

Section 706 of the APA did not apply in Chevron, which was a Clean Air Act case under a significantly different review statute. So accusing Justice Stevens of "whiffing" on Section 706 in Chevron is a self-own. Let's see if the Court goes there too.