Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Supreme Court of the United States Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Administrative state (1)
- Article I (1)
- Attorney-client privilege (1)
- Chevron (1)
- Clean Power Plan (1)
-
- Clean Water Act (1)
- Clear statement (1)
- Commerce Clause (1)
- Common law (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Deference (1)
- Executive branch (1)
- Hard look review (1)
- Investigation (1)
- Major questions doctrine (1)
- Navigability (1)
- Navigable waters (1)
- Office of Legal Counsel (1)
- Raich (1)
- Rapanos (1)
- SWANCC (1)
- Sackett (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Trump (1)
- Waters of the United States (1)
- West Virginia (1)
- Wetlands (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States
The Antiregulatory Arsenal, Antidemocratic Can(N)Ons, And The Waters Wars, William W. Buzbee
The Antiregulatory Arsenal, Antidemocratic Can(N)Ons, And The Waters Wars, William W. Buzbee
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The Clean Water Act has become a centerpiece in an enduring multifront battle against both environmental regulation and federal regulatory power in all of its settings. This Article focuses on the emergence, elements, and linked uses of an antiregulatory arsenal now central to battles over what are federally protected “waters of the United States.” This is the key jurisdictional hook for CWA jurisdiction, and hence, logically, has become the heart of CWA contestation. The multi-decade battle over Waters protections has both drawn on emergent antiregulatory moves and generated new weapons in this increasingly prevalent and powerful antiregulatory arsenal. This array …
House Rules: Congress And The Attorney-Client Privilege, David Rapallo
House Rules: Congress And The Attorney-Client Privilege, David Rapallo
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In 2020, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision in Trump v. Mazars establishing four factors for determining the validity of congressional subpoenas for a sitting president’s personal papers. In an unanticipated move, Chief Justice John Roberts added that recipients of congressional subpoenas have “long been understood” to retain not only constitutional privileges, but common law privileges developed by judges, including the attorney-client privilege. This was particularly surprising since Trump was not relying on the attorney-client privilege and the Court had never treated this common law privilege as overriding Congress’s Article I power to set its own procedures for conducting …