Federal Courts Torn on Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks: What You Need to Know

During Donald Trump’s first term, the federal courts played a key role in slowing down his administration’s efforts to roll back environmental protections. Fast forward to his second term, and the courts are showing a more mixed response toward his administration’s aggressive moves on climate change and environmental policies.

As of November 2022, rulings in 14 significant environmental cases have surfaced, revealing a near tie: six are victories for Trump, five for challengers, and three are split decisions. Notably, three of Trump’s wins came from appeals courts overturning lower court decisions. This pattern suggests a clear trend: appellate decisions have favored Trump.

The Supreme Court has yet to delve into any of these environmental disputes, but its recent emergency orders in other areas raise concerns. For example, decisions in education and health cases could hint at how the Supreme Court might approach similar environmental challenges linked to Trump’s administration.

Michael Gerrard, a climate law expert at Columbia University, notes, “It’s too early to predict outcomes. Sure, three decisions went against initial rulings, but that’s a small fraction of the cases.” His comments echo a broader uncertainty surrounding upcoming cases.

Environmental advocates remain undeterred. Many believe that ongoing legal battles will likely curb the Trump administration’s rollbacks, especially regarding pivotal regulations, such as the EPA’s stance on greenhouse gases.

To add some context, groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) successfully challenged Trump’s first-term policies through litigation, winning about 90% of their cases. Such victories contributed to halting initiatives like the Keystone XL pipeline and marine drilling operations. Courts rejected many of Trump’s initial attempts to weaken environmental regulations.

Today, however, the landscape has shifted. Many of the cases now hinge on executive actions rather than traditional regulatory processes. For instance, Trump has issued orders halting offshore wind projects, leading to legal disputes over multiple projects, including Revolution Wind in Rhode Island, which recently secured a ruling to proceed with construction.

Gerrard points out a common theme: the administration’s drive to promote fossil fuels while curbing state-level climate actions. The Justice Department is currently challenging states like New York and Vermont over their climate policies, asserting federal dominance in this area.

The division among judges is apparent in various cases. For instance, a ruling about a migrant detention facility in Florida showcased conflicting opinions along party lines; judges appointed by Trump sided with the administration, while others did not.

The judicial system was designed to be independent, and the Supreme Court’s leadership has emphasized this principle. However, recent trends show a significant partisan divide shaping decisions in lower courts. A majority of judges are now appointees of Republican presidents, which has altered the dynamics of environmental litigation.

As environmental grantees face delays in accessing funds due to recent rulings, the implications of this judicial climate remain critical. The Supreme Court’s decisions on grant terminations have forced advocates to consider multiple courts for legal relief, complicating their efforts.

Overall, the outcome of legal battles surrounding Trump’s environmental policies will be crucial indicators of judicial independence and the future of climate regulations in the US. Green advocates are hoping for a judiciary that actively checks government overreach while maintaining allegiance to environmental protections deeply rooted in law.

Source link