All News Stories
[ sort articles by tag ]
The New York Times reports on the upcoming omnibus legal arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Southeastern Legal Foundation, representing 12 members of Congress and 16 companies and professional associations, and five other petitioners challenging the EPA's greenhouse gas emissions regulations
Southeastern Legal Foundation joins in the Joint Reply Brief of the Petitioners in the omnibus challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas emission rules, the so-called "climate change" regulations.
Southeastern Legal Foundation files its brief in support of the petitioners in the omnibus challenge against the United State Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas emission rules, the so-called "climate change" regulations.
Oct. 10, 2013: The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to Southeastern Legal Foundation's appeal in the challenge against the Obama administration's EPA greenhouse gas rules, the so-called "climate change" regulatory regime. The Court's decision signals the critical importance of this case on the question of the limits of executive authority.
June 25, 2013: The Supreme Court of the United States today struck down Sect. IV of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional, citing the fact that the formula used to determine which local government units should be subject to ongoing enforcement by the U.S. Justice Department is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. SLF argued that Sect. IV formula was not rational and not based on current data - and that ongoing, costly pre-clearance and review by the Justice Department threatens equal sovereignty under the Constitution. As noted, Congress will now have to develop a new formula that will undoubtedly result in many jurisdictions being released from ongoing enforcement -
June 24, 2013: The Supreme Court of the United States today gets it absolutely right in Fisher v. UT-Austin, et al. - not a 'punt,' as many early analysts suggest. SLF argued as amicus in this case that the lower court got it wrong by not applying the 'strict scrutiny' standard, which shifts the burden to the government agency (here, the state university system) to show that its race-based admissions policy is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court today held that the lower court decision was "incorrect" precisely because it failed to apply the strict scrutiny standard in what SLF describes as "well-settled law" when dealing with affirmative action and race-based government policies.
May 20, 2013: The United States Supreme Court today unanimously agreed that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) overstepped its discretionary authority and improperly rejected tax credit claims sought by the company for taxes it paid in a foreign country, so-called “double taxation.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the unanimous Court, held that the foreign windfall tax falls into a category of income tax recognized in the U.S. and is therefore entitled to credit against U.S. taxes.
Southeastern Legal Foundation, joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Goldwater Institute, argued as amici that the IRS Commissioner’s decision to deny the protection against double-taxation broke with decades of administrative decisions and legal precedent favoring tax credits – what the Supreme Court has described as the purpose behind existing federal law “to mitigate the evil of double taxation.” The “new interpretation” by the IRS Commissioner, which was today rejected by the Court, marked another in a long line of administrative and regulatory overreaching by current Executive branch offices, said Shannon L Goessling, SLF executive director and chief legal counsel.
Counsel of record for the joint amicus brief is Steven G. Bradbury, a Washington, DC- based partner of Dechert LLP and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel for the U.S. Justice Department.
PPL Corp. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 12-43.
SLF submits formal comments in a blockbuster U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules docket that proposes radical changes to 36 states' State Implementation Rules (SIPs) governing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act:
- EPA has not demonstrated that SIPs used for decades are inadequate - therefore, EPA has no authority to enact new, harsher rules.
- The "sue and settle" maneuver, starting with a seemingly unrelated federal court lawsuit in the Northern District of California filed by Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians and resulting in new rules docket in Washington, DC designed to cover nearly 80% of the United States, is designed to "fly under the radar" of accepted rulemaking scrutiny.
- For decades, EPA has approved startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions in SIPs without interruption - until now.
- 36 states are now under threat of new, harsh rules that are without precedent - or justified by proof of violation of existing rules.
- Once again, as with the EPA greenhouse gas emissions (climate change) regulations now before the U.S. Supreme Court, EPA has ignored precedent and grabbed executive/regulatory power beyond that allowed under the Clean Air Act - and without Congressional authorization.
May 8, 2013 - Click here for article