In recent years, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have undercut federal agencies’ ability to curb pollution and fight climate change.

Several cases decided in 2024 continued this trend,
systematically shifting the power to make and enforce environmental regulations over to the judicial branch.

Though it will likely take years to know the full consequences of this year’s rulings,
legal experts say they have profound implications as to how federal agencies can respond to the threat of climate change.
Congress passed the majority of the laws that protect our lands and waters decades ago,
and with an increasingly polarized political environment, legislators have passed few new environmental regulations since.
In the past few decades, Congress has in effect tasked federal agencies with adapting existing laws to our new climate reality,
said Chris Winter, executive director of the University of Colorado Law School’s Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment.

But with an increasingly conservative Supreme Court in place, these laws have come under increased scrutiny,
including in several of the court’s 2024 landmark decisions.
Perhaps the most significant was #Loper #Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,
which overturned the 1984 #Chevron #doctrine, a powerful legal tool that gave federal agencies the ability to interpret and enforce ambiguous or unclear laws.
For decades, the courts have largely deferred to agency experts in crafting and enforcing regulations,
since those agencies typically have greater expertise in their subject areas than judges do.
By eliminating Chevron, the court transferred the authority to clarify the meaning of a written law to the judicial system.

Loper Bright has already raised “a lot of uncertainty” about whether or how agencies should create and enforce environmental regulations,
according to Winter.

The last few years have signaled a structural change in the balance of power between courts and federal agencies, he said,
with courts now working hard to rein in federal regulators.

Meanwhile, industry groups eager to roll back regulations have filed lawsuits in conservative states with business-friendly judges.

In federal courts in Wyoming, Utah and Montana, for example,
groups representing farmers, ranchers and the fossil fuel industry have cited Loper Bright as a precedent for suing the Biden administration to overturn the 2024 #Public #Lands #Rule,
which designated conservation as a legitimate “use” for public lands in line with extractive uses like mining, grazing and logging.

As of Sept. 6, Loper Bright has been cited in 110 federal cases, according to the advocacy group Democracy Forward.

“These days, it doesn’t feel like you can really think deeply about the law. It is simply a political battle,”
said Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center,
a nonprofit public-interest environmental law firm.

Altogether, the body of law emerging from the court has “prioritized politically oriented property rights and economic rights,”
Schlenker-Goodrich said.
“In other words, corporate rights and corporate power.”

https://www.hcn.org/articles/the-supreme-court-decisions-that-gutted-environmental-protections-in-2024/

#Leonard #Leo, the conservative activist with an estimated
$1 billion at his disposal,
is threatening to withhold money from the dozens of groups he supports unless they develop plans to "weaponize" their ideas.

Why it matters:

Leo's call for conservative groups to get #more #aggressive will send shockwaves through the right-wing ecosystem he helped create.

Leo wants less conversation and more action
— fewer seminars and more campaigns
— as part of a plan to
"crush liberal dominance at the choke points of influence and power in our society,"
he told the groups in a letter obtained by Axios.

The goal should be to direct "funding to operationalize or weaponize the conservative vision," Leo wrote.

Zoom in:

Leo, 59, is telling organizations backed by his #85Fund that he's undertaking a
"comprehensive review" of his grant-making process.

His letter doesn't mention any specific groups by name, but they know who they are.

Groups such as Teneo,
Honest Elections Project,
Consumers's Research and
Do No Harm
are examples of organizations that have adopted
the kind of #aggressive #tactics Leo encourages, according to a source close to the 85 Fund.

Those groups have run campaigns that have achieved measurable results, such as
Consumers' Research's work on ESG investing,
which has been featured in congressional hearings.

Decisions about future funding will be shared with the groups by the end of November, Leo's letter said.

Zoom out:

Leo helped build the #Federalist #Society, an organization for conservative law students,
into an incubator for lawyers and judges that reshape the federal judiciary and American society.

He helped former President Trump select three conservative jurists for the Supreme Court
— Neil #Gorsuch, Brett #Kavanaugh and Amy Coney #Barrett.
They've transformed federal law on issues ranging from #abortion #rights (overturning Roe v. Wade) to #federal #rule-#making.

In 2022, the New York Times revealedhow a nonprofit Leo controls,
the #Marble #Freedom #Trust, received a ️$1.6 billion contribution from a conservative donor, #Barre #Seid,
who gifted the shares of the company he founded before they were sold.

Leo has an estimated
️$1 billion left to spend,
according to the Financial Times.

Leo, who is credited with the initial $1.6 billion windfall to Marble Freedom Trust, has been responsible for raising donations and support for the 85 Fund.

Between the lines:

Behind Leo's new push is his admiration for what he views as successes of progressive nonprofit groups
such as The #Wyss #Foundation and the
#Berger #Action #Fund,
supported by #Hansjörg #Wyss.

Leo is also convinced that liberal organizations and ideas have captured most influential institutions in government,
media, entertainment and academia.

"They invested in talent pipelines to populate the power centers inside government,
where policy would be implemented,"
Leo writes.

"They incubated litigation as a means of leveraging the law to produce change."

The other side:

As Leo's prominence and influence have increased,
his methods and his conservative network have drawn scrutiny
— and provoked outrage
— in progressive circles.

https://www.axios.com/2024/09/12/leonard-leo-conservative-groups-funding