August, 14 2018, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Phil LaRue, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500 x 4317, plarue@earthjustice.org
25 Environmental, Advocacy Organizations Oppose Nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh in New Letter
Groups highlight nominee’s record of favoring big polluters, diminishing access to courts for communities, politicizing federal agency actions
WASHINGTON
In anticipation of the start of hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh will begin on September 4, 25 of the nation's leading environmental, legal, and advocacy organizations sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee announcing their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.
In the letter, the organizations contend that Judge Kavanaugh's "lengthy record on the federal bench exposes him as an activist judge who has used cases to effectively rewrite statutes," often stacking the deck in favor of wealthy and powerful corporate polluter interests against communities impacted by toxic wastes, loose emission standards, dangerous petrochemical facilities, and pipelines. The signing organizations also note the historic lack of transparency in the nominating process, with hundreds of thousands of pages relating to Judge Kavanaugh's service in the Bush White House still inaccessible to Senators and the public.
Click here to read the full text of the environmental community's letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee opposing Judge Kavanaugh or continue reading below:
Alaska Wilderness League * Bold Alliance * Center for Biological Diversity
Clean Water Action * Climate Hawks Vote * Defenders of Wildlife * Earthjustice
Endangered Species Coalition * Environmental Working Group * Friends of the Earth
Green For All * GreenLatinos * Greenpeace USA * Hip Hop Caucus
Hoosier Environmental Council * Indivisible * League of Conservation Voters
National Lawyer Guild Environmental Justice Committee * National Lawyers Guild
Oil Change International * Sierra Club * Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
The Wilderness Society * Waterkeeper Alliance * WE ACT for Environmental Justice
August 10, 2018
The Honorable Chuck Grassley, Chairman The Honorable Diane Feinstein, Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary Senate Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
RE: Environmental Groups Oppose the Supreme Court Nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein:
The undersigned environmental groups write today on behalf of our millions of members and supporters to express our strong opposition to the confirmation of D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a lifetime seat on the United States Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh is an unacceptable choice for the Supreme Court, and we urge the Senate to reject his nomination.
Judge Kavanaugh's lengthy record on the federal bench exposes him as an activist judge who has used cases to effectively rewrite statutes, creating new obstacles for agency regulation and scuttling protective regulatory outcomes. His hundreds of judicial opinions and legal writings reveal a judicial philosophy that is hostile to the power of government (especially agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency), and that values corporate profits over people and the health of the public. Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh's decisions reveal a tendency to limit the public's right to access justice through the courts (such as by adopting obstructive "standing" requirements), while at the same time removing barriers for polluters. As a result, a Supreme Court informed by Judge Kavanaugh's brand of judging would mean that courthouse doors will often be closed to people seeking to protect the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the planet on which they live. At a time when too many communities of color bear a disproportionate impact from toxic wastes, loose emission standards, dangerous petrochemical facilities and pipelines placed in their communities, we need a Supreme Court Justice that will combat environmental racism and fight for environmental justice for all, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship status, or income - not someone who will bar the courthouse doors on them.
The stakes for the current Supreme Court vacancy could not be higher. United States Supreme Court Justices do not simply decide cases; they determine whether and how the law works, and for whom. They define what the law means for generations to come, and the lower federal courts are bound to follow the precedent they set. An appointment of a new Justice affects the very nature of our democracy, fundamentally defining the landscape of American law.
Who serves as a Supreme Court Justice is among the most profoundly important choices we make as a nation, and one of the most solemn duties that our constitution entrusts to the U.S. Senate. In carrying out that duty, is it incumbent on the Senate to carefully, and thoroughly, scrutinize every nominee, to thoughtfully consider every aspect of his or her judicial record and legal philosophy, and to ensure a robust, fully informed, and transparent confirmation process. The integrity of our system of laws depends on vetting that is both open and honest. In this regard, we urge the Senate to demand all pertinent records from Judge Kavanaugh's years as a political lawyer in the George W. Bush White House (as provided under the Presidential Records Act), and fully consider these materials before proceeding with confirmation hearings. In the end, a nominee to the Supreme Court should be rejected unless he or she is willing to uphold the values, protect the rights, and serve in the interests of the American people - not just corporations, the wealthy, and the political elites.
I. Judge Kavanaugh's Environmental Record Results in Dirtier Air and Water
In key cases, Judge Kavanaugh has backed the right of corporations to pollute the air and water over the public's right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in safe communities.
As shown in dissents written by Judge Kavanaugh in White Stallion1] and Mingo Logan,[2] he reads burdensome obligations into the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act that the statutes do not include in their text. For example, in White Stallion, he argued that the EPA could not even consider limiting toxic mercury pollution from power plants without first evaluating the cost to the power companies. And in Mingo Logan, he argued that before vetoing a permit that would have allowed coal companies to dump toxic mining wastes into public waterways, EPA should have considered the cost to coal companies. In both of these cases, he invented the requirement to consider costs to industry where Congress did not include that requirement, while at the same time seeking to force the EPA to ignore important real-world benefits - all in order to stack the deck in favor of the outcomes desired by corporate polluters. This tendency to read into a statute the requirement to consider costs to the corporate elites - while ignoring benefits to the environment, and improvements in the health of children, families, and the American public - not only usurps Congressional authority; it puts our health and well-being at risk.
Several of Judge Kavanaugh's decisions would significantly reduce agency power to protect public health, by recrafting statutes to eliminate authority that Congress has given agencies. For example, his narrow interpretation of the Clean Air Act expressed in EME Homer City[3] (an interpretation later overturned by the Supreme Court) would have severely constrained EPA's ability to protect the people in downwind states from pollution emanating from upwind sources. His interpretation in the Mexichem[4] case prevented the EPA from requiring replacement of a harmful chemical substitute for chlorofluorocarbons. His narrow reading of the phrase "air pollutant" in Coalition for Responsible Regulation[5] could undermine the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
His judicial writings also reveal his anti-regulatory approach to evaluating whether an agency action is appropriate under the relevant statute. In cases that raise questions about whether an agency has acted within the scope of its regulatory authority, Judge Kavanaugh favors a deeply subjective "common sense" test - where the statute means whatever he thinks makes sense. Rather than requiring an agency to fully divulge and explain its interpretation of a law that Congress has entrusted it with administering, requiring notice and opportunity for public comment on such interpretation, and then giving special consideration to the agency's conclusions, Kavanaugh would have judges simply impose their own, "common sense," ad-hoc "best reading of the statute."[6] When Judge Kavanaugh has utilized this approach, his "best reading" has been in service of his inclinations toward limited federal authority to regulate, not in the best interest of achieving Congress' protective aims under the relevant statutory program. For example, in his dissent in US Telecom Ass'n v FCC, [7] Judge Kavanaugh outlined a novel "major questions" doctrine that he would have used to reject the FCC's rational interpretation of legislative language and thereby undermine its "net neutrality" rules that are intended to protect consumers. As a Supreme Court Justice, we could expect more of the same, and such an ad-hoc approach to statutory interpretation could ultimately increase regulatory uncertainty and create a perverse incentive for agencies to under-regulate in the first instance.
II. Judge Kavanaugh Politicizes Agency Decision-Making Processes
Judge Kavanaugh's record demonstrates a belief that federal agencies should be more inherently political, which would compromise both the integrity and continuity of their decision-making. He has argued that all federal agencies should operate directly under the political thumb of the President, and should function merely as political extensions of executive branch policy-making. He believes that any degree of separation from direct presidential control is unconstitutional.
In Free Enter. Fund,[8] Judge Kavanaugh's dissent argued that the establishment of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, an independent agency, violated separation of powers principles because the board's members are insulated from "at will" presidential removal. Application of this legal principle would make all agencies more political, would increase regulatory uncertainty, would undermine policy continuity, and would destabilize decision-making related to important issues of safety, economic stability, consumer protection, public health, and the environment. Part and parcel to this extreme view of separation of powers, Judge Kavanaugh believes that sitting Presidents are all but immune from the legal consequence of their actions while they are in office - effectively rendering them constitutionally above the law.
III. Judge Kavanaugh's Corporate-serving Double Standard Blocks Access to Courts
One of the most troubling judicial philosophies revealed by Judge Kavanaugh's decisions is his limited view of the rights of ordinary people and public interest groups to access our court system, and his contrastingly permissive view of corporations' right to do so. Critical public health and environmental laws would have little power and meaning in practice if the public cannot get into court to enforce them.
For example, in Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA[9] Judge Kavanaugh argued in dissent for giving processed-food manufactures standing to challenge EPA's approval of certain ethanol-containing gasoline blends based solely on the mere chance of increased corn prices, even without quantification of the speculative economic injury. Conversely, in Public Citizen, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin,[10] Judge Kavanaugh ruled against the public interest group and its members' right to be in court to challenge the adequacy of vehicle tire-safety standards on behalf of highway drivers. He did so because Public Citizen did not demonstrate "with certainty" that its members would suffer some particularized and currently identifiable harm other than an increased risk from more severe accidents.
Judge Kavanaugh has a troubling pattern of siding with corporations, the wealthy, and the powerful while erecting barriers for those defending the health, safety, and well-being of the American people. It is essential that whoever occupies a seat on the Supreme Court upholds the right of access to the courts for all, and honors the constitutional obligation to provide an impartial check on the power of Congress and the President.
Conclusion
Judge Kavanaugh's approach to the law threatens key elements of environmental and public health protections, and makes it harder for people to hold the government and big corporate polluters accountable. His confirmation to the United States Supreme Court would create a deeply conservative majority that would tip the scales of justice and the law further away from the people's rights and more towards corporate control of our democracy. We strongly oppose Judge Kavanaugh as a nominee and assert that careful scrutiny of his record reveals a predisposition to subordinate the rights of people to the interests of corporate profit making. These qualities in a Supreme Court Justice would threaten the health and well-being of children, families, workers, and communities, and undermine efforts to protect the ecosystems, natural resources, and global climate systems upon which we all rely. Accordingly, we strongly urge you to reject his nomination and vote against his confirmation.
Sincerely,
Alaska Wilderness League |
Bold Alliance |
Center for Biological Diversity |
Clean Water Action |
Climate Hawks Vote |
Defenders of Wildlife |
Earthjustice |
Endangered Species Coalition |
Environmental Working Group |
Friends of the Earth |
Green For All |
GreenLatinos |
Greenpeace USA |
Hip Hop Caucus |
Hoosier Environmental Council |
Indivisible |
League of Conservation Voters |
National Lawyer Guild Environmental Justice Committee |
National Lawyers Guild |
Oil Change International |
Sierra Club |
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance |
The Wilderness Society |
Waterkeeper Alliance |
WE ACT for Environmental Justice |
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Database Exposes 'Illicit Network Undermining Democracy Around the World'
Yanis Varoufakis hailed the effort as "a treasure chest of well-researched reports on how the reactionaries of the world unite."
Apr 17, 2024
"Coups. Assassinations. Riots. Detentions. Disinformation. We know the tactics that have been deployed to undermine our democracies. But who is behind them?"
Progressive International (PI) asks and answers this and other questions with an extensive new database published Wednesday that connects the dots in what the leftist group calls the "Reactionary International"—a loose global network of right-wing leaders and organizations working to subvert democratic institutions.
PI calls it an "illicit network undermining democracy around the world."
"Today is a mask-off moment for the Reactionary International and the parties, politicians, judges, journalists, foundations, think tanks, tech platforms, NGOs, activists, financiers, and entrepreneurs that comprise it," PI said.
"After a year of preparation, we finally open the doors to our new research consortium, exposing the global network of reactionary forces that corrode our democracies, destroy our planet, and drive us closer to world war," the group added.
"The twin insurrections at the U.S. Capitol in 2021 and Brasília's Three Powers Plaza in 2023 left no doubt about the international coordination of reactionary forces," PI argued. "Yet far too little is known about the entities of this network, their sources of financing, and their institutional allies operating inside our political systems."
Ultimately, PI aims to "support democratic systems to become more resilient to their insidious tactics."
From leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and former U.S. President Donald Trump—the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee—to evangelical Christian groups influencing laws in African countries criminalizing LGBTQ+ people and tech companies empowering ubiquitous state surveillance, Reactionary International is a who's-who of the world's right-wing forces.
A cursory search of the database's contents shows users can:
- Learn about Israel's NSO, Rayzone, and Team Jorge, and how a team of Tel Aviv tech entrepreneurs fuel unrest in Latin America;
- Meet the Grey Wolves, Turkey's roving death squad with links to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the ethno-nationalists in his governing coalition; and
- Explore the global network of the Falun Gong, its Trump-connected media outlet The Epoch Times, and its traveling dance troupe known as Shen Yun.
Yanis Varoufakis, a PI member and secretary-general of the left-wing Democracy in Europe Movement 2025, called the database "a treasure chest of well-researched reports on how the reactionaries of the world unite."
PI invites the public to contribute to the database.
"Together, we will not only name, shame, and expose the forces of the far right—but also dismantle their network of complicity," the group said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP State AGs Ask EPA to 'Eviscerate' Crucial Environmental Justice Tool
"Many of the states that have signed the petition have historically allowed these harmful facilities to be placed in predominantly Black and brown communities," said one advocate.
Apr 17, 2024
Led by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, Republican leaders in 23 states on Tuesday filed a petition making clear their aim to allow petrochemical companies and other corporations to continue operating pollution-causing facilities without regard for the "disparate impact" they can have on low-income communities of color.
The attorneys general of states including Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas wrote to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan, asking him to amend Title VI under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The law prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating against residents based on race and national origin and allows residents to petition the EPA arguing that state agencies have intentionally discriminated or disparately impacted a particular community.
Title VI has underpinned hundreds of legal cases, including recent EPA investigations into the 85-mile stretch of land in Louisiana known as Cancer Alley, where dozens of petrochemical plants have been built and health experts have observed a disproportionate number of cancer cases and other medical problems among the predominantly Black population.
The attorneys general said they object to the Biden administration's use of Title VI to "advance what it calls 'environmental justice,'" and complained that the EPA aims to create "a condition in which no racially or economically defined group experiences adverse environmental impacts."
Andre Segura, vice president of litigation at the environmental legal group Earthjustice, said Wednesday that the Republican attorneys general aim to "eviscerate civil rights protections just to make it easier for industrial polluters to continue with business as usual."
"Everyone should be alarmed by these outrageous efforts," said Segura. "The fact is, many of the states that have signed the petition have historically allowed these harmful facilities to be placed in predominantly Black and brown communities, without regard for the health and safety of residents."
Manuel Fernandez, president of Miami-Dade County Democrats in Florida, said the effort was "embarrassing" and called on Moody to resign.
The petition was filed three months after U.S. District Court Judge James Cain Jr., an appointee of former President Donald Trump in Louisiana, ruled that Title VI requirements amount to "government overreach."
The EPA halted its Title VI investigation into the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) last year a month after Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, sued the agency over its Title VI regulations. The EPA had been probing whether the LDEQ placed the historically Black town of St. John the Baptist Parish at risk by allowing companies to build petrochemical plants nearby.
There are more than 50 pending cases regarding Title VI violations, Earthjustice said.
"These decades-old Title VI regulations are critical tools for the federal government to use to ensure that funding is not used to perpetuate this toxic legacy," said Segura, "and the EPA should swiftly reject this petition."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Governors Show 'How Scared They Are' of Workers Organizing With UAW
Congressman Greg Casar said the Republicans behind a new joint statement "sound more like corporate lobbyists than governors."
Apr 17, 2024
As Volkswagen workers in Tennessee began voting on whether to join the United Auto Workers, progressive critics on Wednesday continued to call out six Southern GOP governors for jointly saying they "are highly concerned about the unionization campaign driven by misinformation and scare tactics that the UAW has brought into our states."
Govs. Kay Ivey of Alabama, Brian Kemp of Georgia, Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Bill Lee of Tennessee, and Greg Abbott of Texas issued their statement in response to "the largest organizing drive in modern American history," which the UAW launched after major contract wins following a strike targeting the Big Three automakers—General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis—last year.
"As governors, we have a responsibility to our constituents to speak up when we see special interests looking to come into our state and threaten our jobs and the values we live by," the Republican leaders said, claiming that "unionization would certainly put our states' jobs in jeopardy" and the UAW is "making big promises to our constituents that they can't deliver on."
"We have serious reservations that the UAW leadership can represent our values. They proudly call themselves democratic socialists and seem more focused on helping President [Joe] Biden get reelected than on the autoworker jobs being cut at plants they already represent," the governors added, nodding to the union's January endorsement of the Democrat—UAW president Shawn Fain also called the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, a "scab."
What actually threatens American workers?\n\u274c Anti-union, anti-worker propaganda like this\n\ud83d\udcb0 Corps that put profits over people\n\u26d1\ufe0f Safety standards not being met\n\n@GovAbbott & @GovernorKayIvey sound more like corporate lobbyists than governors here. @UAW backs American workers!— (@)
The Economic Policy Institutesaid Wednesday that the governors' anti-union statement "clearly shows how scared they are that workers organizing with UAW to improve jobs and wages will upend the highly unequal, failed anti-worker economic development model of Southern states."
Responding to the statement on social media, the Congressional Labor Caucus declared that "we speak up when we see threats to workers' rights. Workers must be allowed to choose whether to form a union on their own—free from influence from their employers or politicians. Shame on these governors for putting out this anti-union propaganda."
After Ivey shared the statement on social media, Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, asked, "Better wages and working conditions are against the values of your state?"
MSNBC's Chris Hayes was even snarkier, jokingly calling the statement "yet more evidence of the populist, pro-worker turn of the Trump-era GOP."
The UAW vote in Chattanooga, Tennessee is set to wrap up on Friday. Then, attention is expected to shift to Vance, Alabama. Workers at a nonunion Mercedes-Benz plant there submitted a petition to the National Labor Relations Board earlier this month requesting an election to join the union.
Noting Ivey's social media post about the statement, Diana Hussein, who does communications work for the UAW, said: "She's mad cuz she wants to keep the Alabama discount that leaves workers behind. No more! #StandUpUAW."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, also took aim at Ivey, saying, "You used Alabama taxpayers' money to have state troopers escort out-of-state scabs to break the strike of YOUR constituents."
Nelson explained that she was referring to the "hardworking" United Mine Workers of America members employed by Warrior Met, "who were fighting for the right to see their families more than a few days a year."
More Perfect Union told Ivey that "unions only threaten your values if you value denying workers a living wage and good benefits."
In contrast with the Republican governors, around two-thirds of the Senate Democratic Caucus in January wrote to 13 nonunion automakers—including Mercedes and Volkswagen—urging them not to illegally block UAW organizing at their plants.
"We are concerned by reporting at numerous automakers that management has acted illegally to block unionization efforts," the senators stressed, citing multiple examples. "These retaliatory actions are hostile to workers' rights and must not be repeated if further organizing efforts are made by these companies' workers. We therefore urge you all to commit to implementation of a neutrality agreement at your manufacturing plants."
Welcoming their letter, Fain said that "every autoworker in this country deserves their fair share of the auto industry's record profits, whether at the Big Three or the Nonunion 13. We applaud these U.S. senators for standing with workers who are standing up for economic justice on the job."
"It's time for the auto companies to stop breaking the law and take their boot off the neck of the American autoworker," the union leader added, "whether they're at Volkswagen, Toyota, Tesla, or any other corporation doing business in this country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular