Ben Geman Feb 16
SaveSave story

Trump's courtroom battles over global warming

A newly published paper from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law looks carefully at the 82 legal battles over climate change that got underway during President Trump's first year. Roughly 75% seek to uphold or advance climate policies.

Adapted from Adler, "U.S. Climate Change Litigation In the Age of Trump: Year One"; Note: Lawsuits studied are from 2017; Chart: Axios Visuals

Why it matters: The courts are an important battleground for climate policy, in part because unwinding or freezing a predecessor's policies often requires careful bureaucratic and legal spadework that provides opponents with avenues for litigation.

State of play: Columbia Law School fellow Dena P. Adler explored 82 cases, most of which were filed last year, while a few were prior cases that "pivoted" in response to Trump's deregulatory push. The study breaks down the cases in numerous ways, including a look at the different policy areas the cases address (see chart above).

One level deeper:

  • Overall, nearly three-fourths are what she calls "pro" cases — that is, plaintiffs are seeking to advance or uphold climate policies and safeguards. The balance are "con" cases that she says are designed to "undermine climate protection or support climate policy deregulation."
  • 28% were about integrating climate considerations into environmental reviews and permitting; 17% were aimed at defending Obama administration policies and decisions; 15% were about promoting "transparency and scientific integrity" under Trump; and 13% are aimed at "advancing or enforcing" additional protections.
  • Non-governmental organizations brought over half the cases analyzed, including the bulk of the "pro" lawsuits.
  • The Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency were the most frequent defendants, together accounting for 35 cases.
  • Of 14 cases directly defending Obama-era policies and decisions, 6 of those focused on delays of policy were able to reach some form of resolution.

What's next: "Though courts have issued a few decisions and litigation has pressured agencies to publish some outstanding rules, the 'stickiness' of these outcomes remains uncertain. Neither of these results preclude an agency from subsequently rolling back the policies at issue through the rulemaking process," she writes.

SaveSave story

Zuckerberg admits Facebook "breach of trust"

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg walks wearing a t-shirt, with trees behind him
Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Mark Zuckerberg weighed in on what he called the "Cambridge Analytica situation" today in a Facebook post, saying there was a "a breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us and expect us to protect it. We need to fix that."

"We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you. I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again. The good news is that the most important actions to prevent this from happening again today we have already taken years ago. But we also made mistakes, there's more to do, and we need to step up and do it."

Why it matters: Facebook has been under extraordinary pressure from lawmakers, regulators and Wall Street to respond to the issue.

Jonathan Swan 6 hours ago
SaveSave story

Trump to announce anti-China tariffs tomorrow

President Donald Trump
Photo: Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images

President Trump plans to unveil his aggressive package of tariffs against China tomorrow, with a charge led by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer that will use Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to target Beijing.

The big picture: Two sources with direct knowledge tell me Kevin Hassett has been crunching the numbers, and the dollar value of the tariffs will likely be around $50 billion per year — or slightly less. The administration has used an algorithm to select a batch of Chinese products and then apply tariff rates to those products in a way that will hopefully limit the harm to American consumers.