|
Post by blustnmtn on Jun 27, 2022 16:13:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jun 27, 2022 20:57:39 GMT
I took up legal residence in Tennessee for 1 year when I retired. I had to cash in my options, deferred compensation, etc. It saved me a lot of money since Tennessee has no state income tax. Is there a warrant out for you? The real reason I quit my job and moved to Nashville, of course, was to try to become a legendary country singer.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 27, 2022 22:32:48 GMT
and?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 27, 2022 22:39:00 GMT
Is there a warrant out for you? The real reason I quit my job and moved to Nashville, of course, was to try to become a legendary country singer. Number 1 country single 2022. "ENSO done rolled over me".
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jun 30, 2022 16:27:04 GMT
|
|
|
The Court
Jul 1, 2022 11:58:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by blustnmtn on Jul 1, 2022 11:58:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jul 2, 2022 1:03:13 GMT
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court’s decision to curb the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers could provide legal ammunition for challenges to financial regulations envisioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies.
The SEC is regarded by legal analysts as an obvious target for challenges employing the logic in the EPA case. The Wall Street regulator is drafting rules to require public companies to disclose climate risks and greenhouse-gas emissions. The ruling’s impact, moreover, could be wider-ranging, touching on initiatives from the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other agencies, legal analysts said.
In Thursday’s 6-3 decision, the court said the Obama-era EPA exceeded its authority when it devised the Clean Power Plan, a regulatory approach to reducing carbon pollution from power plants.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania says the climate decision is a win for the democratic process. PHOTO: CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES Elaborating on earlier decisions, the high court said regulations that have sweeping economic and political impact should be invalidated unless Congress has clearly authorized action by an agency.
The justices laid out factors for lower courts to consider when deciding if a “major question” is implicated by a regulation, and the breadth of the doctrine is likely to be clarified in future Supreme Court cases, attorneys said. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the Obama administration EPA had exercised broad authority given to it by Congress.
“Any administrative agencies that are proposing to reinterpret their statutory authority to do novel things are potentially affected by this,” said Jonathan Brightbill, a former Justice Department lawyer now at the firm Winston & Strawn.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
By expanding on this major-questions principle, the court created a road map for lower courts to strike down other regulations in the years to come.
The ruling could also put pressure on lawmakers to lay out policies more specifically and clearly delineate agencies’ authority, rather than allowing regulators to interpret legislation and advance major policies.
Eugene Scalia, who was labor secretary in the Trump administration, said financial regulators are crafting new rules “custom-built to fail in court” absent major changes.
“The SEC, FTC and other agencies are making novel use of old statutes to make big, sweeping policy changes—which is exactly what the Supreme Court has said it would review very, very skeptically,” said Mr. Scalia, a lawyer who has represented financial firms in challenges to regulations.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
The SEC is regarded as a target for legal challenges drawing on the high court’s climate decision. PHOTO: TING SHEN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Business and financial-industry groups that have challenged prior regulations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Friday that they were still reviewing the decision.
While President Biden campaigned on an aggressive climate agenda, much of the administration’s effort to address global warming through legislation has stalled in Congress. That has put greater pressure on regulatory agencies to deliver on a core Democratic priority.
The SEC has a pending proposal that would force publicly traded companies to tally their impact on the environment and the risks they face from climate change. The proposal would force publicly traded companies to report greenhouse-gas emissions from their own operations as well as from the energy they consume, and to obtain independent certification of their estimates. In some cases, companies would be required to report greenhouse-gas output from their supply chains and consumers, known as Scope 3 emissions.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
The policy, which was outlined in March, hasn’t been made final and is expected to face legal challenges. Thursday’s ruling might encourage such pushback.
“I don’t think there’s any question that every corporate securities lawyer in America is going to now fashion their arguments against SEC rule-making to force-fit it into the Supreme Court’s EPA analysis,” said Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of Better Markets, which advocates for financial-industry changes. “The trend lines of where the courts are going is putting significant regulatory climate action at risk,” he added.
Mr. Kelleher said he would expect the Supreme Court ruling to encourage agencies such as the SEC to write proposed rules more carefully so that they are grounded in specific statutory authorizations.
“They’re going to have to prepare to litigate a lot more rules than they were prepared to litigate” before the ruling, he said.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP Capital Journal Scoops, analysis and insights driving Washington from the WSJ's D.C. bureau.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBE Isaac Boltansky, director of policy research at the financial-services firm BTIG, said that he expected legal challenges to the proposed SEC rule, but that they would likely come from avenues unrelated to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision. “The statutory authority is relatively clear,” he said.
Still, he said the ruling would be another way for industry groups to attack new regulations, not just those related to climate. At the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for instance, the clearest vulnerability is an expanded supervisory authority to target discrimination, Mr. Boltansky said, citing industry frustration with the revamped scope of the bureau’s supervisory powers.
Even before the EPA ruling, Republicans said Democratic SEC Chairman Gary Gensler overreached and questioned whether the SEC has the legal authority to set a climate-disclosure rule.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s EPA decision was a win for the democratic process.
Mr. Toomey pointed to the SEC’s climate-disclosure proposal as an example of “a concerted effort by the Left to try to achieve through unelected, unaccountable branches of government what they can’t achieve through the legislative process.”
An SEC spokeswoman declined to comment on the ruling and on Mr. Toomey’s remarks.
Democrats drew a distinction between the EPA’s work to regulate emissions from coal plants directly and the SEC’s efforts to enhance disclosure. Rep. Jim Himes (D., Conn.) said he thought the ruling would have a limited effect on what financial regulators care about, which is disclosure. “If you’re going to build out on some sandbar off Miami, maybe you ought to disclose that to your investors,” he said.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
The EPA ruling could also be used to challenge actions by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has authority over new interstate natural- gas pipelines, said Mr. Brightbill, the former Justice Department lawyer. The commission has drafted policies that would take greenhouse-gas emissions into consideration in determining whether pipelines should be approved. Those policies, if they go into effect, are an obvious area where litigants could invoke the EPA ruling, he said.
Other Biden administration officials and regulatory appointees are in varied stages of exploring how to address climate issues.
A panel of financial regulators last year formally identified climate change as an emerging and growing risk to U.S. financial stability, opening up the possibility of more regulatory action. The panel, known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, is led by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. She has pushed the group to take steps to reduce risks in the financial system tied to climate change.
The FSOC has established two new committees to study climate risks. It has also made climate-related recommendations to its members, encouraging them to consider scenario analysis to model financial risks associated with climate change.
“We are still reviewing this week’s decision but are confident that Treasury and the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s important work on climate-related financial risk will continue to move forward,” said Lily Adams, a Treasury Department spokeswoman.
Write to Amara Omeokwe at amara.omeokwe@wsj.com and Andrew Ackerman at andrew.ackerman@wsj.com
Roe v. Wade Overturned Key coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling eliminating the constitutional right to abortion, selected by the editors
Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade Google to Delete Abortion-Clinic Visits From Location History Biden Backs Dropping Filibuster to Pass Law Allowing Abortion On Abortion Coverage, Company Health Plans Diverge The 50-Year Push to Overturn Roe States Where Abortion Is Restricted What to Know About Abortion Pills What to Know About Data Privacy and Abortion Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Appeared in the July 2, 2022, print edition as 'EPA Decision Poses Hurdles for Regulators'.
WHAT TO READ NEXT...
COMMENTARY Opinion | The Conservative Supreme Court Has Arrived
REVIEW & OUTLOOK Opinion | A Court for the Constitution
COMMENTARY Opinion | Behind Biden’s EPA Power Grab
POLITICAL ECONOMICS Opinion | The G-7’s Economic Fantasy Summit
CROSS COUNTRY Opinion | Hispanic Republicans Have Democrats Seeing Red in Texas
Independent of The Wall Street Journal newsroom MARKETWATCH Supreme Court limits EPA's role in combating climate change in a fresh jab at the 50-year-old Clean Air Act
Independent of The Wall Street Journal newsroom MANSION GLOBAL Miami Beach New Build With Dock Hits the Market for $15 Million
BACK TO TOP Edition English Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Podcasts Snapchat WSJ Membership Benefits Customer Center Legal Policies Google Play App Store SIGN OUT ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 2, 2022 3:51:30 GMT
Personnel employed by the "affected" regulatory agencies should be stripped down to their skivies and shown the door.
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Jul 2, 2022 13:53:02 GMT
The Supremes are having a good session!
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Jul 2, 2022 22:06:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sigurdur on Jul 3, 2022 19:39:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by code on Jul 4, 2022 19:04:35 GMT
|
|
|
The Court
Jul 4, 2022 20:31:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Sigurdur on Jul 4, 2022 20:31:01 GMT
Can't read it. Alternative?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 4, 2022 21:55:59 GMT
Can't read it. Alternative? Ditto. It died in darkness.
|
|