Max Sarinsky
As seen in:
Medium,
MSN,
The New York Times,
Yahoo News Malaysia,
Aol,
POLITICO,
Slate,
The Hill,
Yahoo,
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
and
Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Max Sarinsky
The Supreme Court has made it easier for presidents to sabotage their successors.
the-words-supreme-court-over-the-building-in-the-2.png Jurisprudence By Max Sarinsky, July 06, 20265:33 PM Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images, Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images, and Chip Somodevilla/Pool/AFP via Getty Images. This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Keep up with all of our Supreme Court coverage and analysis by signing up for weekly email roundups.
The Supreme Court Just Made It Easier for Presidents to Sabotage Their Successors Original
Jurisprudence This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Keep up with all of our Supreme Court coverage and analysis by signing up for weekly email roundups. The best way to support our work—and unlock exclusive legal analysis—is by joining Slate Plus.
Tallying the Votes from Learning Resources, the Major Questions Doctrine Remains Relatively Confined
Since the Supreme Court announced the major questions doctrine in 2022, the doctrine has generated extensive confusion in lower courts and academic commentary. As colleagues and I explained in an amicus brief in the Supreme Court’s tariffs litigation, lower courts have expressed considerable confusion over both when the major questions doctrine applies and how the doctrine functions, providing a need for more clarity. The Court’s decision last week in Learning Resources v.
Opinion: How a Trump tariff win can become a victory for climate activism
All eyes are on the Supreme Court as it hears arguments on President Trumps global tariffs. The case will not only decide the fate of one of the presidents signature policies but will also carry far broader implications for presidential power over international trade and even climate policy. If the Supreme Court rules for Trump, it will enable a future president to use tariffs to advance a wide range of domestic policy goals.
Opinion - How a Trump tariff win can become a victory for climate activism
All eyes are on the Supreme Court as it hears arguments on President Trump’s global tariffs. The case will not only decide the fate of one of the president’s signature policies but will also carry far broader implications for presidential power over international trade and even climate policy. If the Supreme Court rules for Trump, it will enable a future president to use tariffs to advance a wide range of domestic policy goals.
How a Trump tariff win can become a victory for climate change
All eyes are on the Supreme Court as it hears arguments on President Trump’s global tariffs. The case will not only decide the fate of one of the president’s signature policies but will also carry far broader implications for presidential power over international trade and even climate policy. If the Supreme Court rules for Trump, it will enable a future president to use tariffs to advance a wide range of domestic policy goals.
The Anti-Regulatory Movement’s Loper Bright Paradox, by Richard L. Revesz & Max Sarinsky
This post is part of Notice & Comment’s symposium on the Senate Post-Chevron Working Group Report. For other posts in the series, click here. How should one think about Loper Bright? On its face, Loper Bright is a meaningful yet measured Supreme Court decision that requires agencies to act consistently with the best statutory readings.
What Loper Bright and Statutory Stare Decisis Mean for Deregulation, by Jack Jones & Max Sarinsky
In eliminating the Chevron doctrine, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondochanged the landscape of administrative law in ways that courts, litigants, and legal scholars are still sorting out a year later. Loper Bright held that courts should exercise “independent judgment” to determine the “best reading” of statutory language without deferring to agencies’ interpretations. While the Court tempered the impact of this holding in important ways, some federal agencies are misapplying those caveats.
The REINS Act’s Approach to Regulatory Reform Is Problematic
Republicans in Congress are renewing their push to restrict the U.S. government’s power to create and enforce rules that regulate business and protect public safety and health. Earlier this year, both the House of Representatives and the Senate introduced updated versions of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which would amend the Congressional Review Act of 1996.
With or Without Chevron Deference, Agencies Have Extensive Rulemaking Authority, by Dena Adler and Max Sarinsky
Soon after the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, we wrote a short analysis outlining the major questions doctrine as laid out by the Court. Our piece was not rocket science. We simply summarized the majority’s test for determining whether an agency’s legal interpretation triggers the doctrine. But as we expected, many litigants opposing the Biden administration’s regulations—and, sometimes, federal trial and appellate judges—have failed to follow that test.
This Is How To Rebut Major Questions Arguments, by Max Sarinsky
In a forthcoming law review article, Richard Revesz and I contend that agencies should preemptively rebut challenges under the major questions doctrine by drawing parallels to past agency actions. A recent federal regulation offers a template for this analysis. In its pollution standards for new vehicles issued last week, the Environmental Protection Agency extensively responded to claims that the rule triggers the major questions doctrine. EPA’s analysis is comprehensive and well-researched.
Symposium on Modernizing Regulatory Review
Notice & Comment Notice & Comment Symposium on Modernizing Regulatory Review *This post is part of a symposium on Modernizing Regulatory Review. For other posts in the series, click here. For the most part, Executive Order 14,094 (“the Order”) closely follows in the footsteps of President Biden’s January 2021 memorandum on “Modernizing Regulatory Review” (“the Memorandum”).
Environmental advocates have insisted for years on the need to robustly account for climate...
Environmental advocates have insisted for years on the need to robustly account for climate impacts when permitting fossil-fuel infrastructure. Courts and agencies are starting to listen. A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and a new guidance document from the White House Council on Environmental Quality mark the latest developments in ensuring that federal agencies consider climate-change impacts before greenlighting fossil-fuel projects.
A key climate metric gets an overdue update
Amid the flurry of news from the recent UN climate summit COP27, the Biden administration made an overlooked announcement that could help modernize U.S. climate policy. In trying to assess how much a ton of climate pollution harms society, the U.S. government has long used a metric called the social cost of carbon. That metric places a dollar value on greenhouse gas emissions and enables government decision-makers to weigh the costs and benefits of policies that affect climate pollution.
The Supreme Court hasn’t killed the Biden administration’s climate agenda, but its latest decision casts a shadow
Late last month, in West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court officially killed the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration’s signature approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. In practice, however, the Clean Power Plan was already dead: The plan was put on hold by the Supreme Court shortly after its 2015 enactment and never took effect.
The WSJ Wouldn’t Print This Response to Its Social Cost of Carbon Editorial
Source: Science Editor’s Note: The author submitted this piece to the Wall Street Journal as a letter to the editor in response to that paper’s misguided editorial on the social cost of carbon published on Feb. 14. The Wall Street Journal declined to publish this letter. This paper’s recent editorial inappropriately maligns the federal government’s valuation of the harm caused by climate pollution as politically motivated.
Louisiana Climate Lawsuit Is Parade of Damaging Mischaracterizations
A federal court in Louisiana heard oral argument Dec. 7 in a case brought by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R) that is gaining national attention. The case seeks to prevent federal agencies from considering scientific estimates of climate change impacts. It could have profound consequences, but not the ones Landry suggests.
Toward Rationality in Oil and Gas Leasing
Leasing public lands and waters for fossil-fuel extraction drives a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The federal leasing program will need to be reformed if the U.S. is to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Our new report charts how analysis for planning and leasing decisions can be improved by more accurately predicting emissions impacts, considering the value of delay, and assessing the distribution of impacts.
Opinion | Stop the Hidden-Fee Rip-Off (Published 2021)
Opinion|Stop the Hidden-Fee Rip-Off https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/02/opinion/consumers-drip-pricing.html Guest Essay Credit...Erik Witsoe, via Getty Images Send any friend a story As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share. By Max Sarinsky Mr. Sarinsky is a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. Want to catch a ballgame at Yankee Stadium?
FERC must fix its broken approach to pipelines
Sarah Ladin is an attorney and Max Sarinsky is a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law. This contributed content represents the views of the authors, not those of Canary Media or of NYU School of Law. Experts worldwide agree that avoiding the most devastating impacts of climate change will require a speedy transition away from fossil fuels.
Opinion | The Trump Administration’s Bad Deal for Public Lands
A pump jack pulls crude oil from the Bakken region of the Northern Plains near Bainville, Mont. | Matthew Brown/AP Photo Jayni Hein is the natural resources director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law. Max Sarinsky is an attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law.
Ban Airlines From Booking Middle Seats Original
The federal government could make companies protect the public during the pandemic. It doesn’t want to. Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by daboost/iStock/Getty Images Plus. As more Americans have returned to the air in recent weeks, many have confronted a disturbing reality: nearly full planes with passengers seated shoulder to shoulder. Once just an unwanted nuisance, this longstanding feature of airline travel is perilous and potentially fatal in the age of COVID-19.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Max
Contact Max, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack