Latest news with #CongressionalReviewAct
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
A plan to shoot 450,000 owls — to save a different owl — could be in jeopardy
An unusual alliance of Republican lawmakers and animal rights advocates, together with others, is creating storm clouds for a plan to protect one threatened owl by killing a more common one. Last August, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a plan to shoot roughly 450,000 barred owls in California, Oregon and Washington over three decades. The barred owls have been out-competing imperiled northern spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest, as well as California spotted owls, pushing them out of their territory. Supporters of the approach — including conservation groups and prominent scientists — believe the cull is necessary to avert disastrous consequences for the spotted owls. But the coalition argues the effort is too expensive, unworkable and inhumane. They're urging the Trump administration to cancel it and lawmakers could pursue a reversal through special congressional action. Last month, The Times has found, federal officials canceled three owl-related grants to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife totaling roughly $1.1 million, including one study that would remove barred owls from over 192,000 acres in Mendocino and Sonoma counties. Two were nixed before federal funding was allocated and never got off the ground, Peter Tira, a spokesperson for the state wildlife agency, said. Another, a collaboration with University of Maryland biologists to better understand barred owl dispersal patterns in western forests, was nearly complete when terminated. 'Under President Donald J. Trump's leadership, we are eliminating wasteful programs, cutting unnecessary costs and ensuring every dollar serves a clear purpose,' a spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said in a statement when asked whether the grants had been terminated. Another lever would be for Congress to overturn the owl-kill plan altogether using the Congressional Review Act. The Government Accountability Office concluded in a late-May decision that the plan is subject to that act, sometimes used by new presidential administrations to reverse rules issued by federal agencies in the final months of prior administrations. Both chambers of Congress would need to pass a joint resolution to undo it. In the months leading up to the GAO determination, bipartisan groups of U.S. House members wrote two letters to the secretary of the Interior laying out reasons why the owl-cull plan should not move forward. In total, 19 Republicans and 18 Democrats signed the letters, including seven lawmakers from California — David Valadao (R-Hanford), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles), Gil Cisneros (D-Covina), Josh Harder (D-Tracy), Linda T. Sánchez (D-Whittier), Jim Costa (D-Fresno) and Adam Gray (D-Merced). Rep. Troy E. Nehls (R-Texas), an ardent Trump supporter, signed the initial letter, and is 'currently exploring other options to end this unnecessary plan, which prioritizes one species of owls over another, and wastes Americans' hard-earned tax dollars,' communications director Emily Matthews said. Kamlager-Dove said also said earlier this year that she objected to killing one species to preserve another. 'And as an animal lover, I cannot support the widespread slaughter of these beautiful creatures,' she said. If a resolution is introduced, passed and signed by President Trump, the plan will be over. The Fish and Wildlife Service would not be allowed to bring forward a similar rule, unless explicitly authorized by Congress. Tom Wheeler, executive director of the Environmental Protection Information Center, which supports reducing the barred owl population, called the specter of the Congressional Review Act 'very scary.' It's 'an intrusion by Congress into areas where we're relying on high agency expertise and scientific understanding,' he said. 'It's vibes versus science.' Wheeler said he believed it was more likely the program would be deprioritized amid budget cuts than eliminated through the Act. 'If we don't move forward with barred owl removal, it will mean the extinction of the northern spotted owl, and it will likely mean the extinction of the California spotted owl as well,' he said. Science is on its side, he said. A long-term field experiment showed that where barred owls were killed, the population of spotted owls stabilized. For animal welfare activist Wayne Pacelle, who has galvanized opposition to the owl-cull plan, it's a hopeful turn of events. 'Even if they had full funding for this, we don't think it could possibly succeed,' said Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy. The land area where the barred owls need to be controlled is just too vast, he said. And barred owls from elsewhere, he said, will simply fly in and replace those that are felled. As few as 3,000 northern spotted owls are left on federal lands. The brown raptors with white spots are listed as threatened under both the California and federal Endangered Species Act. California spotted owls are also in decline, and federal wildlife officials have proposed endangered species protections for two populations. The two sides of the fierce debate agree that barred and spotted owls compete for nesting sites and food — such as woodrats and northern flying squirrels. Barred owls and spotted owls are similar in appearance and can even interbreed. But barred owls are more aggressive and slightly larger, in addition to being more generalist when it comes to what they'll eat and where they'll live, allowing them to muscle out their fellow raptors. Federal wildlife officials and some conservationists consider barred owls invasive. As Europeans settled the Great Plains, they suppressed fire and planted trees, allowing barred owls to expand westward from their origin in eastern North America, biologists believe. 'I would call this an invasion, and I would call these non-native species,' Wheeler said. On the flip side, some see the owl arrival along the West Coast as natural range expansion. There are also conflicting views of the cost of exterminating so many owls. Opponents estimate it will cost about $1.35 billion, extrapolated from a $4.5-million contract awarded to a Northern California Native American tribe last year to hunt about 1,500 barred owls over four years. A 2024 research paper, however, concluded that barred owl removal in the range of the northern spotted owl would cost from $4.5 million to $12 million per year in its initial stages, and would likely decrease over time. At $12 million a year, the 30-year plan would run $360 million. Pacelle's Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy have also sued the Fish and Wildlife Service in U.S. District Court in Washington state over the plan. Friends of Animals, another animal welfare group, filed suit in Oregon. Wheeler's Environmental Protection Information Center has intervened in the suits in defense of the plan, and those cases continue to advance.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Automotive
- Time of India
US tells automakers they face no fuel economy penalties for last three years
Automakers face no fines for failures to meet fuel efficiency rules dating back to the 2022 model year under a law signed by President Donald Trump this month, U.S. regulators said. The tax and budget bill approved by Trump ends penalties for not meeting Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules under a 1975 energy law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in a letter to automakers seen by Reuters it is working on its reconsideration of fuel economy rules. The decision is one of a number made by Washington to make it easier for automakers to build gasoline-powered vehicles and to make electric vehicle sales more costly. Last year, Chrysler-parent Stellantis paid $190.7 million in civil penalties for failing to meet U.S. fuel economy requirements for 2019 and 2020 after paying nearly $400 million for penalties from 2016 through 2019. GM previously paid $128.2 million in penalties for 2016 and 2017. Trump last month signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to bar California's landmark plan to end the sale of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. Last year, Tesla said it received $2.8 billion in global revenue from regulatory credits it earns from selling zero-emission EVs and sells to other automakers seeking to meet vehicle emissions targets. Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio said the costs automakers paid Tesla to be in compliance were "outrageous". Trump NHTSA Administrator nominee Jonathan Morrison said Wednesday at a Senate hearing "at the end of the day a consumer is going to pay for that." The law signed by Trump this month specifies that vehicle fines would be eliminated for any year that NHTSA had not finalized. Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign, criticized the decision. "The Trump administration is reaching back in time to give an obscene gift to pollution law violators GM and Stellantis at the expense of the American taxpayer," Becker said. "The automakers lobbied hard for this 'get out of jail free' card. They get hundreds of millions in fines canceled." GM and Stellantis did not immediately comment. Senate Republicans estimated the law would save automakers $200 million. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing nearly all major automakers, thanked congressional leaders for addressing concerns about fuel economy rules saying "given current market conditions, the existing standards were challenging for many auto manufacturers to achieve." In 2023, under former President Joe Biden, NHTSA said its proposal to hike fuel economy standards through 2032 would cost the industry $14 billion in projected fines including $6.5 billion for GM, $3 billion for Stellantis and $1 billion for Ford Motor. The final rule adopted in 2024 eased requirements and said the auto industry would face no more than $1.83 billion in fines from 2027 through 2031.>
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - ‘Forum shopping' for desired legal results is a bipartisan problem
Last month, the Supreme Court limited the ability of federal courts to issue universal preliminary injunctions, temporary rulings that prevent the government from enforcing a challenged law or policy against anyone until the litigation is fully resolved. The decision should be viewed in the context of a larger problem that the Supreme Court found concerning and was attempting to address: In recent years, litigants have been able to increase their odds of success by handpicking the forums — and sometimes even the judges — for their lawsuits. But the court's ruling is not the way to solve this problem. A newly published analysis from NYU School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity (we are among the co-authors) examines every legal challenge to a federal 'major rule' since 1996, when the Congressional Review Act established the major rules definition. The study reveals that 'forum shopping' is indeed playing an increasingly large role in the fate of major federal policies. And it is a problem that has vexed presidents of both parties. The trend reached its apex during the Biden administration. The study finds that 40 percent of the challenges to the government's major rules were filed in the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit, the federal courts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. This circuit had never seen more than 10 percent of such challenges in any prior administration. The Biden administration won only 21 percent of these challenges filed in the Fifth Circuit, while it won 68 percent of such challenges filed elsewhere. Litigants do not always have a choice of forum for their lawsuits. For example, most environmental regulations with nationwide impacts must be challenged in the D.C. Circuit. But many challenges can be brought nearly anywhere in the country. Under former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, nearly two-thirds of challenges to major rules were still filed in the D.C Circuit. This fell to half of such cases under former President Barack Obama, and dwindled to just over one-third under President Trump's first administration. The figure continued to decline under President Biden. So where are the cases going instead? As the Fifth Circuit example suggests, litigants are shopping for results. During the first Trump administration, litigants challenging major rules favored the liberal-leaning Second and Ninth Circuits — which are headquartered in New York and California — nearly a third of the time. And the first Trump administration saw imbalanced results in these circuits, too. Its win rate in the Second and Ninth Circuits was 28 percent, compared to 54 percent in all other courts. Excluding these circuits would have increased the Trump administration's 45 percent overall win rate by 8 percentage points. While forum shopping is a game that both sides play, the effects are not symmetrical. For example, the Biden administration's overall win rate in challenges to major rules was 45 percent — effectively the same as the Trump administration's — but it would have risen to 68 percent if the Fifth Circuit had been excluded. This 23 percentage point difference is significantly larger than the 8 percentage point decrease for the first Trump administration if the Second and Ninth Circuits were excluded. There is also an increased trend of 'judge shopping.' There are over 1,000 federal district court judges. But of the 130 major rules challenged under the Biden administration, a whopping 16 percent were challenged before just two jurists: Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk and Judge Reed O'Connor of the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, both appointed by Republican presidents. By filing in a particular subdivision of the Northern District of Texas, litigants could effectively choose these judges. Similar judge-shopping did not occur in challenges against the first Trump administration, largely because such loopholes do not exist in courts perceived as favorable to challenges to Republican administrations. It is rational for litigants to play this game. But a system that encourages this kind of behavior — and especially one that produces asymmetrical effects for one side of the political aisle — undermines faith in the fair and even application of law, and thus faith in the judiciary. There is no perfect answer here. But, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in her dissent, changing the rules determining which courts hear disputes may better address some of the policy concerns underlying the Supreme Court's ruling than limiting universal injunctions. One solution would be to channel more cases back to the D.C. Circuit, where nearly two-thirds of challenges to major rules used to be filed. Another would be to reduce litigants' ability to select the forum. For example, some challenges filed in multiple courts are already assigned to one of the courts using a lottery system. Another solution may be to assign challenges to major rules (or some other category of federal actions) randomly to a court across the country, regardless of where they were initially filed. Eliminating universal injunctions may dampen some of the effects of forum shopping. (We say dampen because the ruling does not prevent courts from striking down a federal regulation entirely or providing class-wide relief.) Different courts will continue to decide issues of nationwide import differently, and litigants will continue shopping for results. And the Supreme Court's partial fix comes with enormous downside, as it removes a critical check on unlawful executive actions. Whatever the ultimate solution, the status quo is untenable. Extensive forum shopping undermines faith in the judiciary and the rule of law. Ideally, the trends highlighted in the study will prompt scholars, practitioners and lawmakers to give this question serious thought, and identify bipartisan reforms that still ensure meaningful ways to challenge unlawful executive actions. Don Goodson is the executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, where Bridget Pals is an attorney. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
‘Forum shopping' for desired legal results is a bipartisan problem
Last month, the Supreme Court limited the ability of federal courts to issue universal preliminary injunctions, temporary rulings that prevent the government from enforcing a challenged law or policy against anyone until the litigation is fully resolved. The decision should be viewed in the context of a larger problem that the Supreme Court found concerning and was attempting to address: In recent years, litigants have been able to increase their odds of success by handpicking the forums — and sometimes even the judges — for their lawsuits. But the court's ruling is not the way to solve this problem. A newly published analysis from NYU School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity (we are among the co-authors) examines every legal challenge to a federal 'major rule' since 1996, when the Congressional Review Act established the major rules definition. The study reveals that 'forum shopping' is indeed playing an increasingly large role in the fate of major federal policies. And it is a problem that has vexed presidents of both parties. The trend reached its apex during the Biden administration. The study finds that 40 percent of the challenges to the government's major rules were filed in the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit, the federal courts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. This circuit had never seen more than 10 percent of such challenges in any prior administration. The Biden administration won only 21 percent of these challenges filed in the Fifth Circuit, while it won 68 percent of such challenges filed elsewhere. Litigants do not always have a choice of forum for their lawsuits. For example, most environmental regulations with nationwide impacts must be challenged in the D.C. Circuit. But many challenges can be brought nearly anywhere in the country. Under former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, nearly two-thirds of challenges to major rules were still filed in the D.C Circuit. This fell to half of such cases under former President Barack Obama, and dwindled to just over one-third under President Trump's first administration. The figure continued to decline under President Biden. So where are the cases going instead? As the Fifth Circuit example suggests, litigants are shopping for results. During the first Trump administration, litigants challenging major rules favored the liberal-leaning Second and Ninth Circuits — which are headquartered in New York and California — nearly a third of the time. And the first Trump administration saw imbalanced results in these circuits, too. Its win rate in the Second and Ninth Circuits was 28 percent, compared to 54 percent in all other courts. Excluding these circuits would have increased the Trump administration's 45 percent overall win rate by 8 percentage points. While forum shopping is a game that both sides play, the effects are not symmetrical. For example, the Biden administration's overall win rate in challenges to major rules was 45 percent — effectively the same as the Trump administration's — but it would have risen to 68 percent if the Fifth Circuit had been excluded. This 23 percentage point difference is significantly larger than the 8 percentage point decrease for the first Trump administration if the Second and Ninth Circuits were excluded. There is also an increased trend of 'judge shopping.' There are over 1,000 federal district court judges. But of the 130 major rules challenged under the Biden administration, a whopping 16 percent were challenged before just two jurists: Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk and Judge Reed O'Connor of the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, both appointed by Republican presidents. By filing in a particular subdivision of the Northern District of Texas, litigants could effectively choose these judges. Similar judge-shopping did not occur in challenges against the first Trump administration, largely because such loopholes do not exist in courts perceived as favorable to challenges to Republican administrations. It is rational for litigants to play this game. But a system that encourages this kind of behavior — and especially one that produces asymmetrical effects for one side of the political aisle — undermines faith in the fair and even application of law, and thus faith in the judiciary. There is no perfect answer here. But, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in her dissent, changing the rules determining which courts hear disputes may better address some of the policy concerns underlying the Supreme Court's ruling than limiting universal injunctions. One solution would be to channel more cases back to the D.C. Circuit, where nearly two-thirds of challenges to major rules used to be filed. Another would be to reduce litigants' ability to select the forum. For example, some challenges filed in multiple courts are already assigned to one of the courts using a lottery system. Another solution may be to assign challenges to major rules (or some other category of federal actions) randomly to a court across the country, regardless of where they were initially filed. Eliminating universal injunctions may dampen some of the effects of forum shopping. (We say dampen because the ruling does not prevent courts from striking down a federal regulation entirely or providing class-wide relief.) Different courts will continue to decide issues of nationwide import differently, and litigants will continue shopping for results. And the Supreme Court's partial fix comes with enormous downside, as it removes a critical check on unlawful executive actions. Whatever the ultimate solution, the status quo is untenable. Extensive forum shopping undermines faith in the judiciary and the rule of law. Ideally, the trends highlighted in the study will prompt scholars, practitioners and lawmakers to give this question serious thought, and identify bipartisan reforms that still ensure meaningful ways to challenge unlawful executive actions.
Yahoo
10-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
IRS to back down on controversial broker rule
IRS to back down on controversial broker rule originally appeared on TheStreet. As per a July 10 report by Bloomberg, the Treasury Department cut a proposed set of crypto reporting rules after Congress voted to repeal them earlier in the year. The regulation (TD 10021, RIN 1545-BR39), outlined under Section 6045, specified how decentralized crypto exchanges, or DeFi exchanges, would report the customer transaction information to the US government for tax purposes. This action follows Congress's earlier repeal, through the Congressional Review Act, which overturned the revised IRS rule that broadened the definition of 'broker' to include DeFi platforms. Approved last December 2024, the rule would have treated both centralized and decentralized crypto platforms as brokers who must report customer trades to help fight tax evasion. It had been created by the enforcement provisions of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. DeFi proponents countered that DeFi platforms have no way to capture or verify user information so compliance is not practical and is an unreasonable burden. Industry groups lobbied against the expansion, arguing it would snuff out innovation and send projects overseas. The repeal was passed by both the Senate (70–28) and the House, an indication of strong bipartisan opposition. On April 11, President Donald Trump signed a bill reversing the expanded IRS crypto brokers which otherwise would have been a burden on developers and front-end teams. The official withdrawal of the rule by way of the Department of the Treasury draws a line in the sand, finally recognizing that Congress intended for broker reporting to apply specifically to custodial, intermediary exchanges. It does not preclude future rulemaking that might be specifically adapted to non‑custodial and decentralized entities. For now, the crypto industry sees this as a win. IRS to back down on controversial broker rule first appeared on TheStreet on Jul 10, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jul 10, 2025, where it first appeared.
