Richard Lazarus

Nearly 200 Democrats in Congress – including most from New England – are supporting the Environmental Protection Administration as it faces a legal challenge to its effort to regulate carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants. “The law is clear: The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to regulate air pollution and that is what the agency is doing with the Clean Power Plan rule,” Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said during a conference call Friday with reporters to announce the filing of an “amicus brief” in support of the rule...A similar brief was filed Thursday by Harvard Law Professors Jody Freeman and Richard Lazarus on behalf of two former EPA administrators who had been appointed by Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former EPA Administrators William D. Ruckelshaus and William K. Reilly are supporting the Clean Power Plan as a “pragmatic, flexible, and cost-effective pollution control program” that respects the authority of states. They argue that the rule “falls well within the bounds” of the agency’s authority to reasonably interpret broadly worded statutory language to address unforeseen problems without the need for congressional amendment of current law.

Two former Republican-appointed U.S. EPA administrators are urging federal judges to uphold an Obama administration climate rule that's come under siege in court. William Ruckelshaus and William Reilly are submitting a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today as "friends of the court" supporting EPA's Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut power plants' greenhouse gas emissions...The two former EPA administrators are represented in the case by Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus. "The Clean Power Plan represents the very kind of pollution control program" that the two former agency bosses "endorsed during their service at EPA," the brief adds. "The Plan is a pragmatic, flexible, and cost-effective pollution control program, which properly respects State sovereignty by affording States substantial authority and latitude to decide whether and how best to administer its provisions."

A week after Harvard Law School’s seal change became final, a group of faculty members are publicly speaking out in support of Law School Dean Martha L. Minow, charging that student activists at the school have not given her due credit for her efforts to address racial issues on campus. Seven Law School faculty members—Glenn Cohen, Randall L. Kennedy, Richard J. Lazarus, Todd D. Rakoff, Carol S. Steiker, Kristen A. Stilt, and David B. Wilkins—published an open letter in the Harvard Law Record Monday defending Minow. They wrote, “Our goal here is… to express our support and deep appreciation for Dean Minow and all that she has done during this difficult and important process, and to advance the cause of justice throughout her long and distinguished career.”

President Obama has put a face on the epic election-year Supreme Court battle: Merrick Garland...."Garland has earned a well-deserved reputation as a jurist who is a complete straight-shooter, who comes to his cases, including environmental law cases, without a preconception of preferred outcome," said Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus. "He has proven repeatedly that he is open to giving all claims a meaningful hearing," Lazarus said. "Given that the justice he would be replacing, Antonin Scalia, was known for his heightened skepticism of environmental protection laws and their citizen suit enforcement, a Justice Garland would clearly make a difference for environmental law cases before the Supreme Court."

President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, is expected to meet with several U.S. senators on Capitol Hill Thursday, where Republicans have promised to block any confirmation hearing. Garland, who is currently chief justice of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, has maintained a strong bond with Harvard — where he attended both undergrad and law school. If confirmed, Merrick Garland would be the 20th Harvard Law School graduate on the nation’s highest court. That number is twice as many as Yale, which has had 10 graduates on the court. Professor Richard Lazarus was in his office at Harvard Law School watching on his computer as the president of the United States nominated his friend, Garland, for a seat on the Supreme Court...“He was also a leader when he was here as a student,” said Lazarus...Martha Minow, dean of Harvard Law, said Garland “makes even hard conversations better.” “He is someone who cuts to the heart of the matter, but listens very hard to all points of view,” she continued. “And in addition, he has a great sense of humor.”

So now what? The path ahead for President Obama’s Clean Power Plan went from arduous but somewhat clear to murky with the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13. The whirlwind week for the plan, a key commitment by the United States to reduce climate-changing carbon-dioxide emissions, started with the Supreme Court voting 5-4 to freeze the plan in place, halting implementation while legal issues are decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and, likely, by the Supreme Court itself. Scalia’s death and the battle over selecting his successor that quickly developed between Obama and Senate Republican leaders have raised the prospect of an extended period with a Supreme Court split 4-4 between conservative and liberal justices ― in other words “a mess” for the plan, according to environmental law expert Richard Lazarus, the Howard and Katherine Aibel Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Lazarus, who is serving as counsel in the case for two “friends of the court,” former Republican EPA administrators William Ruckelshaus and William Reilly, spoke with the Gazette about both the plan’s impending lower court hearing and its path ahead should it undergo Supreme Court review.

...Graduates of Harvard Law School and Yale Law School have dominated the court for the past two decades, and each sitting justice attended one of those schools...Harvard Law professor Charles Fried said that the preoccupation with where the justices attended law school is unhelpful, particularly because Harvard students come from a wide range of ethnicities, educational backgrounds and income levels—each of which are more important factors than the name on a judge’s law degree. “What’s more important [than their law alma matter] is their ability, their knowledge, how much they’ve learned and how good they are,” Fried said...“I certainly won’t say that having a lot of Harvard justices is a bad thing,” said Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, who attributes the school’s long roster of high court judges to its large size, elite reputation, and commitment to admitting students with from a broad array of backgrounds and states who display leadership qualities.

The Supreme Court lost one of its most forceful critics of federal wetlands regulations with Justice Antonin Scalia's death, a loss that could shift the balance on how the court approaches some of the most significant water rules of President Barack Obama's tenure, writes Pro Energy’s Annie Snider. Scalia heavily influenced a more critical approach to wetlands rules among his fellow justices, once famously comparing the government to "an enlightened despot" in its implementation of regulations that sought to protect rivers and streams by regulating what individuals and businesses could do on soggy patches of land miles away. "It was Justice Scalia, I think, who woke up that part of the court," Harvard Law Professor Richard Lazarus said. "He brought a very deep skepticism which became infectious for many of the justices on the court."

....“Justice Scalia took no prisoners,” said Harvard University law professor Richard Lazarus. “When you prepared for oral argument, you tended to focus tremendously on him because he could transform an argument.” Mr. Lazarus, who served in the U.S. solicitor general’s office when Justice Scalia joined the court in 1986, said he and other government lawyers watched as the justice on his first day peppered question after demanding question at Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler, a former Scalia colleague, in a case about Indian lands. Justice Lewis Powell during the session turned to colleague Thurgood Marshall and quietly said, “Do you think he knows that the rest of us are here?” according to a Powell biography.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly Feb. 13 while on vacation at a West Texas resort, authored nearly two dozen majority opinions and a dozen dissents in environmental law cases during his 30 years on the U.S. Supreme Court. ... Richard J. Lazarus, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Bloomberg BNA that Scalia “was probably environmental law’s greatest skeptic,” but not “because he was against environmentalism.” ... Jody Freeman, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Bloomberg BNA that “you could largely predict where Scalia would come out on those cases. He was very consistent that the burden on the larger public to get standing was always going to be greater than for directly regulated entities.”

An op-ed by Richard Lazarus: Justice Antonin Scalia joined the bench 30 years ago, this coming September. From his first days on the bench on that first Monday of October to his final days just a few weeks ago, Scalia changed the Supreme Court and its rulings. But his influence was far more profound and transformative than the many significant individual rulings he authored and those that he joined. Justice Scalia did no less than change the nature of legal argument before the Court and opinion writing by the Court.

Harvard Law School affiliates remembered alumnus and Supreme Court Justice Antonin G. Scalia, who died Saturday at age 79, for his vibrant, fiery personality and his substantial contributions to United States law. “Justice Scalia will be remembered as one of the most influential jurists in American history,” Law School Dean Martha L. Minow wrote in a statement. ...  Law School professor Alan M. Dershowitz, who knew Scalia personally, often found himself squaring off against the justice. Dershowitz said. “I disagree with almost all of his opinions, but I found him to be a formidable intellectual adversary.”....Law professor Charles Fried, who has written extensively on Scalia’s judicial stances, wrote in an email, “I knew him in so many ways over so many years. I am very sad about this great man's death.”...Law professor Richard Lazarus penned an op-ed in the Harvard Law Record extolling Scalia’s contributions to the art of oral argument. In a Bloomberg View piece, columnist and Law professor Noah R. Feldman wrote, “Antonin Scalia will go down as one of the greatest justices in U.S. Supreme Court history -- and one of the worst.” Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe commented in Politico Magazine, “To say that Scalia will be missed is an understatement.”

Justice Antonin Scalia’s death will complicate the work of the Supreme Court’s eight remaining justices for the rest of the court’s term, probably change the outcomes of some major cases and, for the most part, amplify the power of its four-member liberal wing. ...“Justice Scalia’s sad and untimely death will cast a pall over the entire term and a shadow over the court as a whole at least until a successor is nominated and confirmed,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard. ...“No less than the viability of the historic climate change agreement reached in Paris may well be in peril,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard. “And without Justice Scalia’s vote, that stay would have been denied.”

The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday sets up a battle between the White House and the Senate over who will nominate a new associate justice—a battle over governing norms and constitutional imperatives, played out in the most powerful republic in the world. ...  As to the first, no legal expert I talked to thought the now-smaller Court was likely to annul its stay. “There is currently no reason to assume the Court will revisit the stay order,” said Richard Lazarus, an environmental-law professor at Harvard University and a veteran of oral arguments at the Court, in an email. “It is final as voted on by the full Court at the time and is not subject to revisiting any more than any other ruling by the Court before the Justice’s passing.”

America's bold effort to cut carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants is on hold. On February 9th the Supreme Court, divided five to four along partisan lines, putting the brakes on Barack Obama’s flagship environmental policy, pending a possible ruling this summer. The plan forms the core of America’s recent commitments to cut emissions, made at the UN climate talks in Paris...States, utilities and mining companies have declared the plan to be too much, too soon. The attorney-general of West Virginia, one of the states opposing it, said he was “thrilled” after the court issued its stay. Richard Lazarus, from Harvard Law School, calls the intervention “extraordinary”. Although compliance with the regulation is not required until 2022, the deadline for submitting first plans to cut back on emissions was supposed to be September.

The Supreme Court’s decision to delay implementation of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan has dealt a serious blow to American efforts to fight climate change, leaving an air of uncertainty—both in the U.S. and abroad with international partners—around a plan Obama once heralded as “the biggest, most important step” ever taken to combat global warming. ..“At least five of them think there’s a serious issue with the validity of the Clean Power Plan,” says Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard Law School. “If the Court thought there was nothing to the claims, they wouldn’t have granted the stay.”