As a result of the insight of Professor Ed Richards, Director of the Louisiana State University Climate Change Law and Policy Project, the give and take in the development of one of the more controversial regulations dealing with visibility protection to national parks is available on video. This video is one of a kind. It was narrated by a very famous actor, Edward G. Marshall, some thirty years ago and goes to a painstaking effort to document the development of a contentious regulation over a considerable period of time.
Democracy Forward/ Immigration
Cities and States Mount Court Challenge to Census Question on Citizenship
San Francisco joins suit to fight Trump administration over census citizenship question
Muslim Advocates Challenge ‘Misleading’ Terror Threat Report
Trump Officials Twisted Data About Terrorists, Lawsuit Claims
Terrorism Report Trump Touted ‘Misleadingly Inflates’ Muslim Threat to U.S., Lawsuit Alleges
The publication of the landmark treatise on the Data Quality Act (aka IQA) is timely because there is a substantial increase in its use by NGOs.
Future litigants, whether a plaintiff or a defendant, now have an arsenal previously unavailable to them.
The Data Quality Act (aka Information Quality Act) has been the subject of numerous articles, many of which conclude that:
- there is no significant legislative history on the legislation
- no court has found the Act to be judicially reviewable, and
- the Act is not judicially reviewable.
In recent years we have seen the media move from in-depth analyses of events to the maximization of articles by writing short off the cuff news stories. However this is not always the case. We call your attention to a recent article published by Inside Washington Publishers (IWP), the publishers of a range of agency-specific publications including Inside EPA.
In this instance IWP conducted a detailed analyses of the institutional consequences of implementing a regulatory budget. It deserves a bookmark in the annals of centralized regulatory review.
Some time ago DEA asked HHS, including FDA, for its views on kratom.
DEA never responded to CRE’s request for a copy of the letter it sent to the FDA nor did CRE obtain a copy of the HHS response to the DEA.
CRE was and still is of the opinion that FDA was a major player in the potential listing of Kratom on Schedule I. It was for this reason that the CRE recommended that Kratom users submit to regulation by the FDA with an emphasis on dosage and purity. CRE wanted the FDA to spend its time on developing a sensible regulation not a legal strategy to ban kratom.
Editor’s Note: Former Senator Nickels and former Congressman McIntosh were instrumental in the establishment of CRE a number of years prior the first successful use of the CRA.
A Harvard Law Review article of the past summarizes in a very concise manner the merits of the Congressional Review Act:
The CRA provides that when a disapproval resolution is sent from the Senate to the House, or vice versa, the receiving chamber cannot refer the resolution to a committee.
Second, the CRA prohibits filibusters of disapproval resolutions in the Senate, setting time limits for debate and eliminating many procedural hurdles.
