Director of Strategic Legal Advocacy @Earthjustice | tweets my own | I flail. I find it works for me.
May 25, 2023 • 25 tweets • 5 min read
What's this case about? It's about the Clean Water Act, which was passed in the 1970s to restore and protect our Nation's waters. Specifically, this case is about what wetlands the CWA protects, and which wetlands are left unprotected. 2/26
Why should you care? Wetlands are essential. They store water to prevent and mitigate floods, filter pollutants before they reach other bodies of water, support forestry, food and seafood production, and recreation, and more. 3/26
Jul 1, 2022 • 43 tweets • 10 min read
Okay, technically it's still "later today," so let's walk through the WVa v. EPA decision that the Supreme Court issued this morning. As always, I've tried to minimize the legalese. 🧵 1/42
Here's an earlier thread that provides background on the case and spells out some of the acronyms that are kicking around this case. 2/42
If you don’t want to listen to a 2+ hour argument or read a 133-page transcript (and who could blame you), see 👇 for a quick summary of what happened during Monday’s SCOTUS arguments in West Virginia v. EPA, keeping the legalese to a minimum. 1/23
Of course, if you *do* want to listen for yourself (everyone should listen to a SCOTUS argument at least once!), @oyez puts the Justices’ pictures, the transcript, and the audio together to make it easy to follow along. 2/23 oyez.org/cases/2021/20-…
Feb 28, 2022 • 86 tweets • 13 min read
SCOTUS is hearing WVa v. EPA today, an important set of cases. The stakes are high, both for our ability to address climate change and for how our government works.
Follow along 👇 for some thoughts on what to watch for and for a real-time recap once it gets started at 10 am.
Here’s a 🧵 with some background on the cases, if you want to get caught up on some of the terms that will be tossed around today.
Need a bit of background on the West Virginia v. EPA cases before tomorrow’s SCOTUS argument?
🧵on the basics below, with as little legal jargon as possible. 1/30
The cases are about the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. But *how* the SCt answers that question is as important as *what* answer it gives. 2/30
Oct 20, 2021 • 23 tweets • 3 min read
CA6 is about to hear Gun Owners of America v. Garland, sitting en banc.
The case is about bump stocks, but the real Q is whether CA6 will hold that courts cannot defer under Chevron when the statute at issue has both civil and criminal applications (as many, many statutes do).
The case involves a challenge to an ATF regulation concluding that "bump stocks" fall within the definition of machineguns in 26 USC 5845(b), and, thus, the criminal prohibition on possessing such weapons in 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).
