Media Mentions

The National Conference of Bar Examiners has a remote proctoring requirement for states using its testing materials in October online bar exams. However, according to one of three bar exam software providers that recently pulled out of the online exam, the mandate may not be possible to carry out. Greg Sarab, the founder and chief executive officer of Extegrity, says his primary concerns about a bar exam with remote proctoring include reliable internet connections being required for live remote proctored exams, and that the requirement of simultaneous start times comes with significant technological and procedural burdens. He also says there hasn’t been sufficient development time or product testing for the technology...Bruce Schneier, a security technologist who is a fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, says building technology for government entities is often difficult. Also, he thinks that when people discuss policy in technology, they frequently talk at each other rather than engaging in active listening to find the best solutions. “It’s not a matter of just plugging in the system and saying, ‘Go.’ It’s hard, and it needs to be thought about. To the extent it hasn’t been thought out, that’s kind of a recipe for disaster,” says Schneier. Many universities now use online proctoring for tests, but Schneier says the systems are “kind of mediocre at everything.” He’s not sure the offerings will improve much and wonders if jurisdictions may want to consider moving away from proctored remote bar exams during the pandemic, and instead, replace them with take-home tests. “How do we define success? If it’s online proctoring and cheating, and I don’t detect you cheating, it’s a success, right? This is hard,” Schneier says.

An article by Noah Feldman: President Donald Trump is pressuring Attorney General William Barr to announce the results of the ongoing Russia probe, which would violate Department of Justice guidelines designed to prevent the department from influencing elections. Of course, influencing the election is exactly what Trump wants Barr to do. Trump is once again using the unique power of the presidency to gain an unfair advantage in the 2020 election. The pattern is by now eerily familiar. It’s the same impulse manifest in Trump’s undermining of the U.S. Postal Service at just the moment it faces the responsibility of handling a surge of mail-in ballots. And it’s identical to the conduct for which Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives. Although it may seem like eons ago, it was only last December that Trump was impeached for abusing the power of the presidency to distort the 2020 election by harming the candidacy of Joe Biden. That was, the House determined, the purpose of Trump’s call to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy. And in Trump’s Senate trial, which ended with Republicans declining to remove him from office, the president’s supporters all but admitted to the pattern. As you’ll remember, their main defense was not that the president hadn’t used his office to try to gain an advantage, but that even if he had, the abuse of power didn’t count as an impeachable offense. The latest Barr affair is about as explicit an abuse of presidential power as you can imagine. Long-standing Department of Justice guidelines issued under the authority of the attorney general say explicitly that “politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges.” The guidelines are implemented via a norm that the department should not make disclosures about politically sensitive investigations in the 60 days before an election.

A podcast by Noah Feldman: Dr. Sean O'Leary, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado and the vice chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Infectious Diseases, discusses what factors school officials should consider when deciding whether or not to reopen schools for in-person learning.

The Radcliffe Institute’s Long 19th Amendment Project reframes the celebration by focusing on the women who would not be fully enfranchised for decades more.

An article by Sharon Block and Rachel Korberg: As the U.S. reopens despite the coronavirus continuing to ravage the country, workers across industries—from agriculture to airport security and meat processing—are getting sick. A century ago it was very common for people in the U.S. to fall ill or even die on the job. We are at risk of returning to a horrifying reality where earning a paycheck again means risking your life.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal government agency charged with enforcing workplace health and safety, has been missing in action during this pandemic. So what can a responsible company do to operate successfully without becoming a hotbed for COVID-19 transmission? Requiring face coverings, implementing thorough sanitation practices, and providing paid leave for all are critical, but businesses should be careful not to ignore a too-often missing element: the voices of their workers themselves. Workers have a key role to play in designing and implementing new, on-the-job health practices—and even more so in the absence of enforceable federal standards. If they aren’t able to speak up when they spot a problem, we risk prolonging this crisis, deepening the economic pain, and ultimately losing more lives. MIT research has shown that companies with empowered frontline staff who have trusting, collaborative relationships with management are better at quickly identifying challenges and developing and implementing new solutions. This makes intuitive sense—workers know better than anyone how to do their jobs best, what risks they face, and how to solve problems in the workplace.

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to wreak havoc worldwide, another looming threat remains on the back burner: the global climate crisis. Climate change has been a hot topic and polarizing issue for decades, with debates over its validity and level of seriousness more political than scientific. But the science is clear: Earth is getting hotter and its inhabitants are largely to blame. The warmer world is already provoking an increased number of extreme weather events, causing negative health impacts and obligating people to flee their homes. Experts say failure to take considerable action will have devastating consequences. What evidence do we have that the world is changing for the worse? What effects are we seeing now in 2020 and what more is predicted? Who and what are the biggest contributors? What is the status of environmental regulations and policies? What more has been proposed? Is there time to reverse concerning trends? What would be the biggest challenges? What’s at risk if we don’t? Guests: Jody Freeman, professor of law and founding director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard University; Abrahm Lustgarten, senior environmental reporter for ProPublica; Jason Smerdon, research professor, co-director of the sustainable development undergraduate program and faculty member of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

An article by Sean Quirk '21: On July 13, the United States hardened its position against the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the South China Sea. A statement from U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that “Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea” and “its campaign of bullying” are “completely unlawful.” Since the July 12, 2016, arbitral tribunal ruling in Philippines v. China (South China Sea Arbitration), the United States has insisted that the decision is “final and legally binding” on both parties. The tribunal rejected China’s claims to “historic rights” and its “nine-dash line” in the South China Sea. In calling for all sides to abide by the tribunal decision, Washington—along with dozens of other countries—had thus aligned itself in support of international law and against China’s claims that fell outside the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But Pompeo’s announcement stresses U.S. support not only for the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the disputes but also for the merits of the tribunal’s findings. His statement asserts that China “has no legal grounds” to continue claiming maritime dominion throughout the nine-dash line. The statement’s strong rhetoric lambasts Chinese behavior since the 2016 ruling, saying: “The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire.” Moreover, the statement paints the United States as the defender of Southeast Asian countries facing a China that is attempting to “bully them out of offshore resources, assert unilateral dominion, and replace international law with ‘might makes right.’”

Twenty years ago this fall, the United States was plunged into 36 days of turmoil as lawyers, judges, political operatives, and election workers grappled with the uncertain result of the presidential contest in Florida. Whoever won the state would win the presidency. In the end, after start-and-stop recounts and the intervention of courts at every level, Texas Governor George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, was declared the victor, edging out Vice President Al Gore, the Democrat. The story of the 2000 Florida recount offers a reminder of just how chaotic the electoral process can become—and of how disarray in a single state can undermine faith in the democratic process nationwide...The account here, drawn from interviews with more than 40 people with firsthand experience of the Florida-recount saga, is both a history and a warning...On Friday, November 24, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Gore. Two days later, on Sunday night, Katherine Harris certified the vote tally in Florida, and Bush’s lead stood at 537 votes. Some recount results were excluded—the results from Palm Beach County had arrived two hours late. Miami-Dade had stopped its recount. Laurence Tribe (Gore lawyer): Ron Klain called, and he said, “We really need help. It looks like there is an issue about federal-court intervention with the electoral recount, and we need you to fly down to Florida immediately.” The question of whether, as a matter of federalism, this is an appropriate intervention was very much up in the air. The next morning, I appeared in federal court, and I remember arguing that it was inappropriate for a federal court to intervene at this point. If there were any constitutional issues about the recount, they could be properly handled at the state level and in the state court.

When Shawn McClinton was released from jail in July, according to police, the twice-convicted rapist didn’t waste much time before he struck again. Awaiting trial on another assault charge, McClinton allegedly raped a woman at knifepoint in Dorchester. The attack came just a couple of weeks after a local nonprofit called the Massachusetts Bail Fund posted his bail, enabling him to leave jail after spending two years in detention without a trial. The law enforcement establishment didn’t waste any time, either: Attorney General Maura Healey called the fund’s decision to post the $15,000 bail “dangerous and irresponsible.” Police Commissioner William Gross called the bail fund a “detriment to society.” Even Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins, roundly considered a progressive prosecutor, criticized the organization, whose stated mission is to post bail for low-income defendants so they can await trial from home just as wealthier defendants do...According to the Suffolk County DA’s office, a dangerousness hearing was not held in McClinton’s case even though experts say his criminal track record makes him exactly the kind of defendant these hearings are designed for. “This is a prosecutor problem, not a judge problem or a bail-fund problem,” says Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge and Harvard Law professor. “The person who dropped the ball is the prosecutor who didn’t say ‘this guy is dangerous’” and request the hearing...Both Gertner and the Massachusetts Bail Fund, for its part, believe the narrative that the public is being fed about McClinton’s case is an attempt to maintain the status quo in law enforcement precisely at a moment of unprecedented mobilization demanding police and criminal justice reform. “The outrage and shock from stakeholders are disingenuous,” bail-fund board member Jessica Thrall says. “All of them know exactly how bail works.”

An article by I. Bennett Capers, John C.P. Goldberg and Benjamin C. Zipursky: Police officers enjoy almost complete immunity from civil suits in federal court. They can shoot someone, taser someone, choke someone, or press their knee into someone’s neck until they can’t breathe. They can brutalize peaceful protesters. And yet, in large part because of the court-made rule of qualified immunity, officers rarely face liability. The calls for ending qualified immunity have not gone unheard. The House of Representatives passed a bill that would eliminate it and enable victims to obtain remedies for violations of their civil rights. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the Senate have balked at this change, as has President Trump. Likewise, the Supreme Court recently declined to revisit the subject. The good news is that changing federal law is not the only way to erase the grave accountability deficit for unlawful police violence. There’s an alternative hiding in plain sight: state law. While no state can change federal law, each state has the authority to change its own rules. State tort law has long empowered individuals who have been choked, shot or maimed to sue the person who victimized them. And, while the states have their own sorry track record when it comes to police accountability, it is the prerogative of state lawmakers — not the federal government — to change rules of state law that stand in the way of imposing legal responsibility for police violence. There are already some hints of progress at the state level.

The opening words of Noah Feldman’s latest book, The Arab Winter, are in Arabic: Al-sha‘b Yurid Isqat al-nizam! The people Want The overthrow of the regime! As he explains in his first sentence, “These words, chanted rhythmically all over the Arab-speaking world beginning in January 2011, promised a transformation in the history of the Middle East.” In English, “the people” are plural and take plural verbs: “We the People of the United States,” begins the preamble to America’s fundamental law, “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In modern Arabic, Feldman goes on, “the people”—sha‘b—is singular and “the collective noun takes the singular verb.” “If it did not sound awkward in English,” he writes, “I would translate it as ‘the people wants.’” From a verse of the Qur’an in which “peoples”—shu‘ub—is plural, the noun morphed to the singular as a result of the movement for Arab nationalism of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The movement, social as well as intellectual, envisioned a single nation of all speakers of Arabic spanning the Mediterranean Sea—3,000 miles “from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east.” The Arab Winter is about the consequences of the Arab Spring. The series of populist surges between the Decembers of 2010 and 2012, in 10 to 20 countries (depending on how you count), promised to end dictatorship and bring self-government to countries in Northern Africa and the Middle East. But other than in Tunisia, which toppled its repressive dictator and embraced constitutional democracy, the uprising led to civil war, rampant terrorism, or redoubled dictatorship—or to all of them combined. Despite the collapse of the movement, Feldman argues that it should not be judged a failure.

In the United States, “The primary way we define ‘food safety’ is, ‘If I eat this product today, will I be in the hospital in 24 to 72 hours?’” says clinical professor of law Emily Broad Leib. “But this doesn’t account for other ways that the food system produces health risks for members of the public,” including the lifelong risks of, say, developing type 2 diabetes after consuming sugary foods for decades, or the environmental effects of industrial farming, such as fertilizer runoff in waterways, which creates oxygen-free dead zones inhospitable to aquatic life. The single-minded emphasis on microbes like salmonella and E. coli, Broad Leib asserts, “means we’re under-regulating a bunch of other risks that have bigger health impacts.” As director of Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic, she engages law students in projects that investigate how U.S. law intersects with the broader food system, “from the first seed going into the ground, to someone’s plate or perhaps to a trashcan.” Her purview encompasses environmental impacts, worker safety, and even immigration as factors in food production. This holistic, systems approach is a relatively new way to consider food law; when Broad Leib first made the case to law-school colleagues about her work, many misunderstood, thinking she was narrowly focused on foodborne illness or the work of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). But Broad Leib says that in reality, a food-systems approach is “breathtakingly broad” in its scope. She sees this as a necessity. “This is the way we have to look at these issues,” she says, “or we’re going to continue to make really short-sighted, less equitable, less utilitarian policies.”

As the election nears, anxieties are growing over the possibility that President Donald Trump will try to cling to power if he loses to former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump, for his part, is strongly hinting he will not accept any loss as a legitimate result. On Thursday, the president said that he’s deliberately blocking funding to the United States Postal Service in order to prevent people from voting by mail in the midst of the pandemic, which he claims, without evidence, will result in mass fraud...All this has led many Americans to wonder: What can proponents of democracy do to prevent a stolen election? ...Mark Tushnet, professor of Law at Harvard Law School, warns that results on election night may be misleading due to a close race and the slow counting of mail-in ballots. In 2018, late-counted mail-in ballots after Election Day caused a “blue shift” that understated the depth of the Democratic victory on election night. Trump could take advantage of this delay, aided by overeager—or friendly—media outlets. Tushnet writes: “ ‘Close’ and ‘slow’ are concepts that will be developed on the fly, and with an eye to electoral advantage, but my current version is that margins of around 10,000 votes or fewer will be [construed] to be close. And what counts as slow will depend in part upon whether states provide interim updates from election-night reported outcomes.” Countermeasures: “Immediate popular mobilizations in the form of street demonstrations near but not in the venues where mail-in ballots are being counted (so not the ‘Brooks Brothers’ Republican riot from 2000), with the theme ‘Count every vote.’” Likelihood: This scenario depends on the race tightening in the weeks ahead, the difficulty of counting mail-in ballots, and willingness of the GOP to weaponize an indecisive election night outcome against democracy. Which is to say, it is highly plausible.

Business has soared for UPS as Americans have turned to home delivery during the pandemic, but employees say heavy workloads, COVID-19 safety measures and sweltering summer heat are pushing them to the limit...Twenty UPS workers around the country told NBC News that since spring they’ve been dealing with the volume of packages they see during their peak season, the Christmas rush, if not more. As the pandemic has forced businesses to close around the country, UPS is a shiny outlier. Company statistics show home deliveries are up two-thirds compared to the same period in 2019. But even as temperatures rise, drivers and warehouse workers said they’re pushed to work harder and pressured not to take breaks or days off. As the pandemic extends into the hottest days of summer, UPS employees are among thousands of essential workers in the U.S. confronting a Catch-22. To stave off infection, they’re told to wear masks and avoid clustering with others in closed, air-conditioned spaces. But those measures increase the risk of heat illness — a problem for delivery workers even before the pandemic. Last year, NBC News found more UPS employees were hospitalized for serious heat-related injuries between 2015 and 2018 than workers at any other company except the U.S. Postal Service, which is significantly larger...But despite a growing attention to the role of essential workers, advocates said OSHA, which polices workplaces, has failed to protect them. “It’s unthinkable to me what has been happening with OSHA,” said Terri Gerstein, senior fellow at the Economic Policy Institute and director of the State and Local Enforcement Project at Harvard Law School. “They are abdicating their duty to enforce the law.”

As he did in 2016, Donald Trump is constantly claiming that if he loses in November it will be proof that the vote was rigged against him. He tweets regularly, contrary to the available evidence, that mail-in voting will lead to massive amounts of voter fraud when such fraud hasn’t been a significant problem in any presidential election in modern history. Because Trump seems unlikely to accept the results of the vote if he loses, there is widespread speculation that Trump’s will litigate every ballot it can. But Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, tells AlterNet that the Trump campaign might not have to file a challenge itself, as his supporters might claim that they had been disenfranchised by some sort of fictitious scheme to “rig” the vote...And Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard University, tells AlterNet that he can imagine a scenario where the Democrats are the ones suing over election results. “One bad scenario is that a swing state’s election is close and that many mail-in ballots — enough to maybe change the result of the election — arrive too late to be counted because of deliberate delays by the post office,” Stephanopoulos says. “The disadvantaged side (probably Democrats) would then sue, arguing that the mail-in voters’ right to vote was burdened by the post office delays and by the state’s policy of not counting late-arrived ballots.” Stephanopoulos says he expects that the current Supreme Court would be “hostile to this claim despite its normative appeal.” He says the Court has never ruled in favor of a voting rights plaintiff, and it “would be unlikely to start when its decision might benefit a Democrat and when it could plausibly deny the claim.”

EPA's rationale for its decision to stop directly regulating potent heat-trapping emissions from the oil and gas sector may contain fatal flaws that could cause the agency's new standards to stumble in court, legal experts say. The Trump administration last week finalized a pair of regulations aimed at rolling back the Obama administration's 2016 New Source Performance Standards controlling methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry (Climatewire, Aug. 14). Legal experts agree the agency's cost-benefit analysis justifying the rule change will be a likely target of litigation, particularly in light of a recent district court ruling striking down the Trump administration's approach to the social cost of methane, which puts a dollar figure on the harm caused by emissions of the greenhouse gas...The rule falls into the Trump administration's pattern of finding ways to limit the scope of agency powers under the Clean Air Act to regulate planet-warming gases in years to come, said Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School's Environmental and Energy Law Program. "It breaks with prior interpretation of the Clean Air Act in order to take a stance that could limit the ability of EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from any source in the future," Vizcarra said. EPA's about-face on its definition of what methane sources actually get regulated under the new rule — particularly its exclusion of transportation and storage facilities — is a potential point for litigation, said Romany Webb, a senior fellow at Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. "I think there are some really good arguments to be made that EPA has not adequately justified that re-definition of the listing category, which really kind of is completely opposite to the position it took both in 2011 and in 2016," she said.

An article by Noah Feldman: The theory that Kamala Harris is ineligible to be vice president because her parents were not U.S. citizens is xenophobic and false. But it's not exactly the same as the birther conspiracy theory that said President Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States at all. Birtherism was a conspiracy theory based on a factual lie. Even debunking that kind of theory can be a bad idea because it tends to help the falsehood reach more people — some of whom then believe the lie. The anti-Harris theory, in contrast, is based on a fringe constitutional claim about the meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment. When it comes to constitutional claims, even extreme ones, it's important to explain why they are wrong in order to refute them. It’s therefore both valuable and necessary to explain carefully why this theory is incorrect as a matter of constitutional law. To do that, you need to start with the theory itself. It starts with the constitutional provision of Article II that says, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” (To be vice president, you have to meet the eligibility requirements to be president.) According to the attack theory, the meaning of “natural born” should be derived from the 14th amendment, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The attack on Harris’s eligibility focuses on the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The basic idea is supposed to be that those words modify the words “born in … the United States.” The theory asserts that children of non-citizens aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. If that is so, runs the argument, they aren't citizens.

An article by Cass Sunstein: The intense debates over school openings are missing something crucial: numbers. Without them, it’s essentially impossible to know what to do, or to evaluate what is being proposed. Here’s an analogy. Suppose that the Food and Drug Administration is contemplating a new food safety regulation, or that the Department of Transportation is considering new restrictions on railroads. The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is supposed to require it to identify the gains and the losses — the benefits and the costs. Those numbers might not be decisive, but they’re needed. In their absence, the decision whether to proceed, or not to proceed, is essentially a stab in the dark. To be sure, some numbers might be hard to specify. The agencies might not know enough to provide them. But officials have well-established techniques for dealing with that problem. For example, agencies might be asked to disclose the ranges, including the best and worst cases, and their respective likelihoods. It’s true that politics might intervene, and you might not be able to trust the numbers. But when the system is working well, they are checked and rechecked by people who know what they are doing, and aren’t affected by political considerations. The decision whether and how to reopen schools is being made by states and localities, not by Washington, and numbers need to inform those choices. The problem is that for school openings (and much more), we’re mostly hearing abstractions and generalities — expressions of agitation and fear. On the one hand, reasonable people are pointing to the immense strain on parents of having young kids at home and the many problems with online learning. On the other hand, reasonable people (including teachers’ unions) are pointing to the risk of an outbreak and a spike in deaths.

A post on Facebook claims Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., cannot serve as president because of her parents' citizenship...Harris is a citizen of the United States and has been since birth. She was born in Oakland, California, on Oct. 20, 1964, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. Her parents were both immigrants — her father from Jamaica and her mother from India. By virtue of her birth in California, Harris is a natural-born U.S. citizen. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." And that's not dependent on their parents' citizenship. "Anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship," according to the Cornell Legal Information Institute. Parental citizenship is relevant to an individual's citizenship status only if the individual is born outside of the United States...When Harris ran for president, similar claims about her citizenship and eligibility circulated online. At the time, Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, condemned the notion. “I can’t believe people are making this idiotic comment,” Tribe told the Associated Press in 2019. “She is a natural born citizen and there is no question about her eligibility to run."

President Trump on Thursday encouraged a racist conspiracy theory that is rampant among some of his followers: that Senator Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic vice-presidential nominee born in California, was not eligible for the vice presidency or presidency because her parents were immigrants. That assertion is false. Ms. Harris is eligible to serve. Mr. Trump, speaking to reporters on Thursday, nevertheless pushed forward with the attack, reminiscent of the lie he perpetrated for years that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya...Mr. Trump appeared to be referring to a widely discredited op-ed article published in Newsweek by John C. Eastman, a conservative lawyer who has long argued that the United States Constitution does not grant birthright citizenship. Ms. Harris, the daughter of Jamaican and Indian immigrants, was born in 1964 in Oakland, Calif., several years after her parents arrived in the United States...In an interview on Thursday, Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, compared Mr. Eastman’s idea to the “flat earth theory” and called it “total B.S.” “I hadn’t wanted to comment on this because it’s such an idiotic theory,” Mr. Tribe said, “There is nothing to it.” Mr. Tribe pointed out that the theory still quickly landed in the hands of a president who has used his pulpit to spread a number of conspiracies against his political enemies, particularly those who do not have white or European backgrounds.

The Trump administration on Thursday rolled back regulations aimed at reducing emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas operations, its latest move to unwind environmental rules ahead of November’s presidential election. During a visit to election swing state Pennsylvania, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler formally rescinded 2016 Obama administration limits on oil and gas industry emissions of methane, a move criticized by environmentalists when initially proposed last August. Wheeler said in Pittsburgh that new rules would save $100 million a year between 2021 and 2030. The rules will “fulfill President (Donald) Trump’s promise to cut burdensome and ineffective regulations for our domestic energy industry,” he said. Methane is the main component of natural gas. It is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide but does not remain in the atmosphere as long...In addition to the rollbacks, the EPA also set up hurdles for a future administration to regulate methane by requiring the agency to make a finding that methane contributes significantly to air pollution before proposing new requirements. Joe Goffman, former EPA senior counsel and director at Harvard’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, said reducing methane from oil and gas is necessary to combat climate change. “The purpose of this rule is simply to strew baseless legal obstacles across that path, ensuring that after Trump and Wheeler are finally gone, their successors will have to struggle to achieve urgently needed methane reductions,” he said.