Trump Administration Begs Supreme Court To Derail Climate Change Law Suit

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Trump Administration

In Scalia’s Shadow

Never Trump ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 197-220
Author(s):  
Robert P. Saldin ◽  
Steven M. Teles
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
First Choice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Total Lack ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Trump Administration

This chapter explores the creation of Checks and Balances, a new group of conservative legal critics of the Trump administration. From his racist attack on the federal district judge ruling on the Trump University case and suspicions that he would appoint his own sister to the Supreme Court, to his threats to revise libel law so as to silence his rivals and his nearly total lack of constitutional discussion, Donald Trump was almost no prominent conservative lawyer's first choice. Once he dispatched all his Republican rivals, however, conservative lawyers were in a quandary. The death of Antonin Scalia, the most celebrated conservative jurist of his generation and a leader of the conservative legal movement, put the future of the Supreme Court squarely on the ballot. Once the character of Trump's governance became clear, Checks and Balances emerged to criticize the administration's legal conduct.

scholarly journals Climate change denial as far-right politics: How abandonment of scientific method paved the way for Trump

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-60
Author(s):  
Gavin Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
The United States ◽  
Far Right ◽  
Climate Change Denial ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
Democratic Norms ◽  
Trump Administration

In this article I show that the form of argument put forward by the climate change denial movement in the United States (US) closely resembles that used in Nazi Germany with regard to Nazi racial definitions. Each involves a rejection of scientific method. This rejection inherently lends itself to far-right politics, which is a philosophy of prejudice. The prevalence of such a philosophy in contemporary American political culture, exemplified through climate change denial, has arguably opened the door for a president of Trump's type. Nevertheless, the US Constitution is far more difficult to suspend than that of the Weimar Republic. As a result, US institutional safeguards against a philosophy of prejudice are likely to hold against a short-term assault on environmental justice in a way that the Weimar Republic's constitutional order did not against Nazism's assault on civil rights. The greater threat to environmental protection in the contemporary US situation is the slow erosion of democratic norms by the Trump administration.

Rolling Back Climate Regulation: Trump’s Assault on the Planet

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-130
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Corporate Crime ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Regulatory Policies ◽  
Climate Regulation ◽  
Climate Crisis ◽  
Trump Administration

The Donald Trump administration has engaged in a number of crimes related to climate change. This article examines these climate crimes, in particular, the administration’s organized denial of global warming and its political omissions concerning the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions that result in the rollback of existing regulatory policies related to the climate crisis. This criminality is explored through the lens of the concept of state–corporate crime, a concept utilized by a number of green criminologists to analyze environmental harms. The Trump administration’s rollback of climate change regulations is first located within its historical, political, and social contexts. Then, the specific actions and political omissions that constitute these rollbacks are described and analyzed as state–corporate environmental crimes.

Presidential Proclamation Indefinitely Restricting Entry of Individuals from Designated Countries Is Fully Implemented Amid Ongoing Legal Challenges

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-117
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal District ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Federal District Courts ◽  
Recent Version ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Trump Administration

On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the most recent version of President Trump's executive action restricting the entry of nationals from certain countries to take effect. The decision stayed nationwide injunctions granted by two federal district courts on constitutional and statutory grounds. This version of Trump's “travel ban,” (EO-3), issued on September 24, 2017, restricts the entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen—all of whom had been restricted under previous orders—as well as North Korea, Venezuela, and Chad. While litigation continues in the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, the Trump administration fully implemented EO-3 by December 8.

scholarly journals Trump v. Hawaii

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Spiro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Trump Administration

In Trump v. Hawaii, the United States Supreme Court upheld admissions restrictions imposed by the Trump administration on nationals of certain countries for putative security reasons. In so doing, the Court's opinion reaffirmed judicial deference to the president on matters relating to immigration. Although the decision marked a Trump administration victory at the end of a protracted judicial clash, the lower courts are likely to continue operating as a check on aggressively restrictionist policies pursued by the administration on other fronts.

Barrett’s US Court confirmation will help businesses

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trump Administration

Significance Absent the successful restructuring of the institution of the Supreme Court -- which would be major change and is therefore considered unlikely -- seating Barrett will solidify a conservative majority on the Court for the foreseeable future. Impacts A second term Trump administration would likely face fewer rulings against it by the newly composed Supreme Court. If Biden wins, he will be reluctant to expand the Supreme Court. A more conservative Court will help Biden and moderates keep Democratic progressives in check if Biden is president. The Court will likely be called on to decide one or more cases relating to the 2020 elections.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document