Did I miss this on Prof. Heather's Letters from an American?
"Can a plaintiff walk into court, challenge a federal regulation, and win a victory that halts the entire government’s ability to enforce that regulation anywhere, against anyone—even parties that played no role in the litigation?"
Did I miss this on Prof. Heather's Letters from an American?
"Can a plaintiff walk into court, challenge a federal regulation, and win a victory that halts the entire government’s ability to enforce that regulation anywhere, against anyone—even parties that played no role in the litigation?"
Why is this such a big deal? Because Federal Courts and SCOTUS have been using this practice to block the entire law for a nation rather than just for one individual. Extensively, it has been used against agencies such as the EPA.
Most recently Federal Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had the courage to point out this problem to the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Done of course in a textualist manner which angered Roberts and brought on a rebuttal from Beer Keg Kavanaugh about his association with the Lions Sleeping Tonight of the premier DC COA.
Such gaul a female Federal Solicitor General would make a textualist argument in SCOTUS? The APA was meant to grant relief to individuals and nullify the regulation with regard to every single business in the country. SCOTUS interpreted it as the former. Not really an interpretation, purposeful determination.
Federal Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar called them on this. "Virginia School of Law Prof. John Harrison and Notre Dame Law School Prof. Samuel Bray. In short, Harrison and Bray have persuasively demonstrated that by directing courts to “set aside” an unlawful rule, Congress simply meant that courts could reverse the judgment of the agency, and issue relief to the parties before it—rather than to the whole world."
The boldness, the lack of respect, the arrogance of the Solicitor General angered Roberts who questioned the brazenness of her approach. Kavanaugh discussed his association with the Lons of the DC Court . . . pitiful.
I laughed my *8* off. More of you to call them to an accounting!
Did I miss this on Prof. Heather's Letters from an American?
"Can a plaintiff walk into court, challenge a federal regulation, and win a victory that halts the entire government’s ability to enforce that regulation anywhere, against anyone—even parties that played no role in the litigation?"
Why is this such a big deal? Because Federal Courts and SCOTUS have been using this practice to block the entire law for a nation rather than just for one individual. Extensively, it has been used against agencies such as the EPA.
Most recently Federal Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had the courage to point out this problem to the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Done of course in a textualist manner which angered Roberts and brought on a rebuttal from Beer Keg Kavanaugh about his association with the Lions Sleeping Tonight of the premier DC COA.
Such gaul a female Federal Solicitor General would make a textualist argument in SCOTUS? The APA was meant to grant relief to individuals and nullify the regulation with regard to every single business in the country. SCOTUS interpreted it as the former. Not really an interpretation, purposeful determination.
Federal Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar called them on this. "Virginia School of Law Prof. John Harrison and Notre Dame Law School Prof. Samuel Bray. In short, Harrison and Bray have persuasively demonstrated that by directing courts to “set aside” an unlawful rule, Congress simply meant that courts could reverse the judgment of the agency, and issue relief to the parties before it—rather than to the whole world."
The boldness, the lack of respect, the arrogance of the Solicitor General angered Roberts who questioned the brazenness of her approach. Kavanaugh discussed his association with the Lons of the DC Court . . . pitiful.
I laughed my *8* off. More of you to call them to an accounting!