Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
(The Center Square) – A federal appeals court ruled in Kentucky’s favor, saying the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency did not abide by established law in reviewing and rejecting the state ...
The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court not to intervene, allowing the EPA to issue its new rule "taking into account all relevant considerations, including changes to the electricity sector that have occurred during the last several years", and allow time for it to be reviewed, rather than make judgment on a speculative EPA rule. [26 ...
On September 24, 2024, a federal judge ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action citing the findings of an extensive federal review of many studies published in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals showing a dosage-dependent negative impact on children's IQs.
Several justices suggested the Environmental Protection Agency had failed to adequately explain why court rulings in separate cases that have blocked application of the rule against 12 of the 23 ...
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Friday to put on hold new federal air pollution rules from President Joe Biden's administration to tighten limits on mercury and methane ...
A federal judge has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water because high levels could pose a risk to the intellectual development of children.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), also known as Sackett II (to distinguish it from the 2012 case), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that only wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection" to "traditional interstate navigable waters" are covered by the Clean Water Act.