Latest news with #PaulClement
USA Today
15 hours ago
- Business
- USA Today
Supreme Court turns aside conservative challenge to $8 billion phone and internet subsidy program
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 27 upheld an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans, rejecting a conservative argument that the program is funded by an unconstitutional tax. The case raised questions about how much Congress can 'delegate' its legislative authority to a federal agency and whether the Supreme Court should tighten that standard. Under a law Congress passed in 1996, telecommunications companies are charged a Universal Service Fund fee – passed on to customers − that boosts phone and internet service to households and hospitals in rural areas, to low-income families, and to public schools and libraries. A private administrator overseen by the Federal Communications Commission distributes the funding, collects the fees and estimates how much needs to be raised each quarter. The FCC must approve the estimate before it's used to determine fees for each carrier. The conservative group Consumers' Research, a carrier and a group of consumers challenged this setup, which has been the law for nearly three decades, asserting it's Congress, not the FCC – and certainly not a private entity − that must determine the fee level. "At its heart, this case is about taxation without representation," Trent McCotter, an attorney for the group, told the Supreme Court in March. 'The amount of public revenue to raise is a quintessential legislative determination, not some minor detail to be filled in later.' While appeals courts in Ohio and Georgia rejected those arguments, the Louisiana-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared the universal service fee unconstitutional. The challenge was part of a conservative effort to curb the 'administrative state' that has often been successful at the high court. But Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general under former President George W. Bush − a Republican − represented a trade association for the telecommunications industry defending the program. He told the justices this was not the right case to revamp Supreme Court decisions that had set a low bar for the non-delegation rule. 'We all benefit from having a communications system that is truly universal,' Clement said. 'I may not live in rural Alaska, but it's nice to be able to place a call there.' And the Justice Department warned that declaring the funding scheme unconstitutional would jeopardize many other programs. The telecommunications law, according to the department, follows the same delegation framework Congress has used in a range of areas, including to prevent unfair competition, oversee the securities industry, ensure the safety of food and drugs, regulate labor relations and set air-quality standards. The lead case of the two that were consolidated for arguments is Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research.
Hamilton Spectator
16-06-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Supreme Court to hear appeal from Chevron in landmark Louisiana coastal damage lawsuits
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear an appeal from Chevron, Exxon and other oil and gas companies that lawsuits seeking compensation for coastal land loss and environmental degradation in Louisiana should be heard in federal court. The companies are appealing a 2024 decision by a federal appeals court that kept the lawsuits in state courts, allowing them to move to trial after more than a decade in limbo. A southeast Louisiana jury then ordered Chevron to pay upwards of $740 million to clean up damage to the state's coastline. The verdict reached in April was the first of dozens of lawsuits filed in 2013 against leading oil and gas companies in Louisiana alleging they violated state environmental laws for decades. While plaintiffs' attorneys say the appeal encompasses at least 10 cases, Chevron disagrees and says the court's ruling could have broader implications for additional lawsuits. Chevron argues that because it and other companies began oil production and refining during World War II as a federal contractor, these cases should be heard in federal court, perceived to be friendlier to businesses. But the plaintiffs' attorneys — representing the Plaquemines and Jefferson Parish governments — say the appeal is the companies' latest stall tactic to avoid accountability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit already rejected similar arguments from Chevron. 'It's more delay, they're going to fight till the end and we're going to continue to fight as well,' said John Carmouche, a trial attorney in the Chevron case who is behind the other lawsuits. He noted that the companies' appeal 'doesn't address the merits of the case.' Chevron's counsel, Paul Clement said in a statement that the company was 'pleased' with the Supreme Court's decision. Exxon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The court's decision to hear the appeal offers the chance for 'fair and consistent application of the law' and will 'help preserve legal stability for the industry that fuels America's economy,' said Tommy Faucheux, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, in an emailed statement. In April, jurors in Plaquemines Parish — a sliver of land straddling the Mississippi River into the Gulf — found that energy giant Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, had for decades violated Louisiana regulations governing coastal resources by failing to restore wetlands impacted by dredging canals, drilling wells and billions of gallons of wastewater dumped into the marsh. 'No company is big enough to ignore the law, no company is big enough to walk away scot-free,' Carmouche told jurors during closing arguments. Louisiana's coastal parishes have lost more than 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) of land over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey , which has also identified oil and gas infrastructure as a significant cause. The state could lose another 3,000 square miles (7,770 square kilometers) in the coming decades, its coastal protection agency has warned . Chevron's attorneys had argued that land loss in Louisiana was caused by other factors and that the company should not be held liable for its actions prior to the enactment of a 1980 environmental law requiring companies to obtain permits and restore land they had used. The fact that the lawsuits had been delayed for so long due to questions of jurisdiction was 'bordering on absurd,' the late-federal judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman remarked in 2022 during oral arguments in one of the lawsuits, according to court filings. He added: 'Frankly, I think it's kind of shameful.' Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, a longtime oil and gas industry supporter, nevertheless made the state a party to the lawsuits during his tenure as attorney general. 'Virtually every federal court has rejected Chevron's attempt to avoid liability for knowingly and intentionally violating state law,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement. 'I'll fight Chevron in state or federal court—either way, they will not win.' ___ Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
16-06-2025
- Business
Supreme Court to hear appeal from Chevron in landmark coastal damage lawsuits
NEW ORLEANS -- The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear an appeal from Chevron, Exxon and other oil and gas companies that lawsuits seeking compensation for coastal land loss and environmental degradation in Louisiana should be heard in federal court. The companies are appealing a 2024 decision by a federal appeals court that kept the lawsuits in state courts, allowing them to move to trial after more than a decade in limbo. A southeast Louisiana jury then ordered Chevron to pay upwards of $740 million to clean up damage to the state's coastline. The verdict reached in April was the first of dozens of lawsuits filed in 2013 against leading oil and gas companies in Louisiana alleging they violated state environmental laws for decades. While plaintiffs' attorneys say the appeal encompasses at least 10 cases, Chevron disagrees and says the court's ruling could have broader implications for additional lawsuits. Chevron argues that because it and other companies began oil production and refining during World War II as a federal contractor, these cases should be heard in federal court, perceived to be friendlier to businesses. But the plaintiffs' attorneys — representing the Plaquemines and Jefferson Parish governments — say the appeal is the companies' latest stall tactic to avoid accountability. 'It's more delay, they're going to fight till the end and we're going to continue to fight as well,' said John Carmouche, a trial attorney in the Chevron case who is behind the other lawsuits. He noted that the companies' appeal 'doesn't address the merits of the case.' Chevron's counsel, Paul Clement said in a statement that the company was 'pleased' with the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Exxon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The court's decision to hear the appeal offers the chance for 'fair and consistent application of the law' and will 'help preserve legal stability for the industry that fuels America's economy,' said Tommy Faucheux, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, in an emailed statement. In April, jurors in Plaquemines Parish — a sliver of land straddling the Mississippi River into the Gulf — found that energy giant Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, had for decades violated Louisiana regulations governing coastal resources by failing to restore wetlands impacted by dredging canals, drilling wells and billions of gallons of wastewater dumped into the marsh. 'No company is big enough to ignore the law, no company is big enough to walk away scot-free,' Carmouche told jurors during closing arguments. Louisiana's coastal parishes have lost more than 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) of land over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has also identified oil and gas infrastructure as a significant cause. The state could lose another 3,000 square miles (7,770 square kilometers) in the coming decades, its coastal protection agency has warned. Chevron's attorneys had argued that land loss in Louisiana was caused by other factors and that the company should not be held liable for its actions prior to the enactment of a 1980 environmental law requiring companies to obtain permits and restore land they had used. The fact that the lawsuits had been delayed for so long due to questions of jurisdiction was 'bordering on absurd,' the late-federal judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman remarked in 2022 during oral arguments in one of the lawsuits, according to court filings. He added: 'Frankly, I think it's kind of shameful.' Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, a longtime oil and gas industry supporter, nevertheless made the state a party to the lawsuits during his tenure as attorney general. 'Virtually every federal court has rejected Chevron's attempt to avoid liability for knowingly and intentionally violating state law,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement. 'I'll fight Chevron in state or federal court—either way, they will not win.'
Winnipeg Free Press
16-06-2025
- Business
- Winnipeg Free Press
Supreme Court to hear appeal from Chevron in landmark Louisiana coastal damage lawsuits
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear an appeal from Chevron, Exxon and other oil and gas companies that lawsuits seeking compensation for coastal land loss and environmental degradation in Louisiana should be heard in federal court. The companies are appealing a 2024 decision by a federal appeals court that kept the lawsuits in state courts, allowing them to move to trial after more than a decade in limbo. A southeast Louisiana jury then ordered Chevron to pay upwards of $740 million to clean up damage to the state's coastline. The verdict reached in April was the first of dozens of lawsuits filed in 2013 against leading oil and gas companies in Louisiana alleging they violated state environmental laws for decades. While plaintiffs' attorneys say the appeal encompasses at least 10 cases, Chevron disagrees and says the court's ruling could have broader implications for additional lawsuits. Chevron argues that because it and other companies began oil production and refining during World War II as a federal contractor, these cases should be heard in federal court, perceived to be friendlier to businesses. But the plaintiffs' attorneys — representing the Plaquemines and Jefferson Parish governments — say the appeal is the companies' latest stall tactic to avoid accountability. 'It's more delay, they're going to fight till the end and we're going to continue to fight as well,' said John Carmouche, a trial attorney in the Chevron case who is behind the other lawsuits. He noted that the companies' appeal 'doesn't address the merits of the case.' Chevron's counsel, Paul Clement said in a statement that the company was 'pleased' with the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Exxon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The court's decision to hear the appeal offers the chance for 'fair and consistent application of the law' and will 'help preserve legal stability for the industry that fuels America's economy,' said Tommy Faucheux, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, in an emailed statement. In April, jurors in Plaquemines Parish — a sliver of land straddling the Mississippi River into the Gulf — found that energy giant Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, had for decades violated Louisiana regulations governing coastal resources by failing to restore wetlands impacted by dredging canals, drilling wells and billions of gallons of wastewater dumped into the marsh. 'No company is big enough to ignore the law, no company is big enough to walk away scot-free,' Carmouche told jurors during closing arguments. Louisiana's coastal parishes have lost more than 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) of land over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has also identified oil and gas infrastructure as a significant cause. The state could lose another 3,000 square miles (7,770 square kilometers) in the coming decades, its coastal protection agency has warned. Chevron's attorneys had argued that land loss in Louisiana was caused by other factors and that the company should not be held liable for its actions prior to the enactment of a 1980 environmental law requiring companies to obtain permits and restore land they had used. The fact that the lawsuits had been delayed for so long due to questions of jurisdiction was 'bordering on absurd,' the late-federal judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman remarked in 2022 during oral arguments in one of the lawsuits, according to court filings. He added: 'Frankly, I think it's kind of shameful.' Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, a longtime oil and gas industry supporter, nevertheless made the state a party to the lawsuits during his tenure as attorney general. 'Virtually every federal court has rejected Chevron's attempt to avoid liability for knowingly and intentionally violating state law,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement. 'I'll fight Chevron in state or federal court—either way, they will not win.' ___ Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Boston Globe
16-05-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Law firms fighting back against Trump report security clearance suspensions
Advertisement The handful of firms that did not make deals -- and were then singled out in orders that accused them of working against the country's national interest -- sued, arguing that the orders amount to blatantly illegal retaliation for representing clients and employing lawyers the president opposes politically. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In at least one instance, a federal judge has agreed, bypassing a trial and permanently blocking the government from enforcing the terms of an order targeting the firm Perkins Coie. In the cases involving WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, judges have temporarily halted the Trump administration from implementing the orders aimed at them while litigation plays out. Even so, Paul Clement, a lawyer for WilmerHale, said in a filing that two of its lawyers had received letters informing them that their security clearances had been suspended. Advertisement 'This development underscores that the executive branch stands ready and willing to implement the executive order absent judicial intervention,' Clement wrote in a notice dated May 9. A lawyer for Jenner & Block filed a similar notice dated May 14 indicating that it had just learned one of its attorneys had their clearance suspended as well. Trump's executive orders directed agencies to essentially exile the firms from any work that runs through the federal government, such as by barring their attorneys from entering federal buildings, blacklisting them from federal contracts and taking away any security clearances held by their staff. As justification, the orders cited the fact that both firms had employed top members of the special unit that investigated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the question of whether Trump had worked to obstruct that investigation. They specifically named Robert Mueller and Andrew Weissmann, who returned to those firms in the years after the investigation wound down. Both left in 2021, as lawyers for the firms have noted. Both firms have asked the respective judges in their cases to skip past a trial and decide the relatively straightforward question of whether Trump's orders are legal and should be allowed to stand. Their cases are essentially identical in nature to those brought by other firms that found themselves in a similar position, such as Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey. When Perkins Coie received its final ruling from a judge this month, the answer to whether the president's order was lawful was an emphatic no. The ruling, from Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, compared the president's order to an attempt by a populist mob to destabilize society by rooting out the legal opposition in Shakespeare's play 'Henry VI.' Advertisement Howell's ruling also showed deep disdain for the firms that had cut deals with Trump to avoid retribution. Nine firms, including Paul Weiss; Rifkind; Wharton & Garrison; and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom preemptively offered to take on millions of dollars in free work for largely uncontroversial causes, collectively approaching nearly $1 billion. But after extracting those deals, the White House moved to consider even more intrusive terms, including enlisting them in legal fights to further Trump's agenda. This article originally appeared in .
