The RNLA was pleased to present Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt with the 2018 Ed Meese Award at its National Policy Conference on Friday:
Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, for whom the award is named, stated: “Scott Pruitt is
an outstanding public servant who has rendered extraordinary service first to the state of Oklahoma
and now to the entire nation. His accomplishment in common-sense environmentalism is an example
for all who are truly interested in conservation of resources and quality of life.”
RNLA First Vice President Manuel E. Iglesias, who will interview Administrator Pruitt after giving him
the award, said: “Scott Pruitt has led the effort to restore the rule of law at the EPA, fighting to enforce
existing laws while not enacting new regulations that will hurt hardworking Americans with little effect
on the environment. While being constantly attacked by Democrats, liberals, and the media, he has
been steadfast in his defense of transparency, regulatory reform, agency efficiency, due process, and
cooperative federalism."
Administrator Pruitt was selected for his hard work to restore the rule of law to the Environmental
Protection Agency under President Trump and his efforts to defend the rule of law and protect the
role of states in our federalist system as the former Attorney General of Oklahoma. Administrator
Pruitt has returned the EPA to its statutory mandates and limits, working tirelessly to undo the extralegal
practices of the Obama Administration while under constant attack from the left.
Administrator Pruitt's discussion with RNLA First Vice President Manuel Iglesias may be viewed here. He emphasized the actions he has taken to restore the rule of law to the EPA and how clear rules will encourage a cleaner environment:
At a Republican National Lawyers Association meeting on Friday, Pruitt laid out what he hoped to accomplish at EPA in 2019. First, Pruitt mentioned finalizing the repeal of major Obama-era regulations.
“I anticipate the proposed redefining of ‘waters of the United States’ will come out here very soon, and we will finalize that by the end of the year,” Pruitt said at the event where he accepted an award. . . . In the upcoming year, Pruitt would also focus on less high-profile reforms to EPA’s permitting and reporting processes, he also told Republican lawyers.
“Just to give you one example, when I came in I asked the question of our team, ‘how long does it take us to go through the permitting process,'” Pruitt said. “And it wasn’t even measured. We didn’t even know.”
EPA has been developing a process “where the agency is going to be able to make a decision, up or down, on a permit within six months by the end of the year,” Pruitt added.
Congratulations to Administrator Pruitt on receiving the 2018 Ed Meese Award, and thank you for your efforts to protect the rule of law.
RNLA Co-Chair Joanne Young wrote today in The Daily Caller about how successful President Trump has been restoring the rule of law in 2017. It began with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice:
At every turn, Sessions has had to fight against entrenched, liberal career employees and Obama holdovers. But Sessions has remained dedicated. He has increased focus on vigorous and equal enforcement of the laws to reduce violent crime, ended third-party settlement practices that directed taxpayer dollars to liberal outside groups, and defended the rule of law in litigation, such as supporting voter ID laws, free speech, and religious liberty. The process of restoring the rule of law to the Department of Justice will take years, but President Trump and Attorney General Sessions have had an effective first year.
And continued with Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and other exemplary new federal judges:
At just 50 years old, Justice Gorsuch will serve on the nation’s highest court for many years to come. In his 10 years on the Tenth Circuit, he had demonstrated a commitment to adhering to the text of the Constitution, statutes, and regulations, even when it led to unfortunate results on the facts. He had shown his dedication to the principle that it is for the legislature to decide policy and enact it in law and for judges to apply that law, without inserting their own policy preferences. While his commitment to the rule of law and textualism has earned him the scorn of liberals, it protects the right of the American people to be ruled by the law written by their elected representatives, not by the whim of unelected judges.
President Trump has also started rolling back overreaching regulations and unlawful policies across the Executive Branch:
On taking office, President Trump immediately began rolling back the regulatory overreach that was the hallmark of the Obama years. On January 30, he directed that when an agency promulgated a new regulation in 2017, it had to identify two regulations to repeal. He has periodically directed agencies to review the permissibility of particular rules or interpretations that have impermissibly expanded the scope of certain laws and regulations, such as when he directed the Environmental Protection Agency’s Administrator to review the “Waters of the United States” rule on February 28.
As the agency personnel nominated by President Trump have taken office, they have worked to review and undo the harmful and expansive interpretations of the Obama years in their agencies. For example, in October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ended the “sue and settle” practices whereby radically liberal environmental organizations controlled how the EPA interpreted its own rules through litigation, often being paid with taxpayer money for their efforts. . . . Or consider Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, [whose] proposal to undo the FCC’s own regulatory overreach of the Obama years, “net neutrality,” was approved last Thursday, despite personal, racially tainted attacks against Pai and his family by outraged liberals. . . . Net neutrality was imposed through an FCC power grab whereby, after 20 years of bipartisan agreement over the Internet, the FCC unilaterally reinterpreted its own governing laws without congressional authorization, despite the previous FCC Chairman admitting that he did not know how the new rule would be interpreted.
Ms. Young concludes by pointing to the very real world consequence of decreased and clearer regulations: a booming economy. Likewise, judges and a Department of Justice that respect the rule of law protect the rights of all people, ensuring a brighter future for all Americans.
RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen wrote today in The Daily Caller about how leaders in the Trump Administration are starting to undo the regulatory power grabs of the Obama Administration and being attacked for it by liberals:
For the eight years of the Obama Administration, liberals worked through extra-legal means to achieve the policy goals they desired that did not have enough popular support to be passed by the legislature. Sometimes this took the form of convincing judges to ignore the text of statutes and regulations and decide cases on the basis of policy, over-ruling the will of the people expressed through their representatives. Other times, it took the form of agencies ignoring the rule of law, seizing power, and enacting new policies without regard to their statutory limits and without proper procedures such as rulemaking following notice and comment.
He began with the example of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to undo the "net neutrality" rules enacted in 2015:
The “telecommunications service” classification was designed for monopoly telephone services and gives the FCC extremely broad authority to regulate. Extending this regulatory authority to Internet service is unquestionably an extension of the FCC’s authority. It was an extension that was authorized not by Congress but by the FCC itself.
Even worse, this power grab was unclear. . . . Chairman Pai’s proposed plan would return Internet service regulation to the previous regulatory framework—which had been upheld by the Supreme Court—and restore the FCC’s authority to the level granted by Congress. He publicly released it, unlike in 2015 when the details were released only after the FCC had already adopted them.
These are just a few examples of the immense amount of work remaining to be done in the Executive Branch to restore the rule of law. This effort is the opposite of a power grab. It is giving power back to the people through their elected representatives and taking power away from unelected activists inside and outside of government.
We thank these courageous leaders and President Trump for fighting to restore the rule of law to the federal government against the attacks of liberals and obstruction of Obama-holdover and career staff members in federal agencies.
Last Monday, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt ended the "sue and settle" practices by which environmental activist organizations controlled a portion of the regulatory process at the EPA during the Obama Administration:
“The days of regulation through litigation are over,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. “We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle.”
The EPA explained how these "sue and settle" practices worked:
Over the years, outside the regulatory process, special interest groups have used lawsuits that seek to force federal agencies – especially EPA – to issue regulations that advance their interests and priorities, on their specified timeframe. EPA gets sued by an outside party that is asking the court to compel the Agency to take certain steps, either through change in a statutory duty or enforcing timelines set by the law, and then EPA will acquiesce through a consent decree or settlement agreement, affecting the Agency’s obligations under the statute.
These practices bypassed the required processes for regulatory changes, resulting in regulatory overreach without the required input from the public and regulated community that is required by law:
More specifically, EPA either commits to taking an action that is not a mandatory requirement under its governing statutes or agrees to a specific, unreasonable timeline to act. Oftentimes, these agreements are reached with little to no public input or transparency. That is regulation through litigation, and it is inconsistent with the authority that Congress has granted and the responsibility to operate in an open and fair manner.
“Sue and settle” cases establish Agency obligations without participation by states and/or the regulated community; foreclose meaningful public participation in rulemaking; effectively force the Agency to reach certain regulatory outcomes; and, cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars.
Administrator Pruitt laid out eight specific practices that will now be used by the EPA to "increase transparency, improve public engagement, and provide accountability to the American public when considering a settlement agreement or consent decree." As legal scholars Hans von Spakovsky and Rob Gordon point out, these are the types of changes are needed across the Executive Branch to undo the regulatory overreach that was pervasive under President Obama:
Congress could, and should, make such improvements permanent. These types of changes are needed not just at the EPA, but at every federal agency — including the Fish and Wildlife Service — to prevent the abuse of power perfected by the Obama administration.
We thank Administrator Pruitt for taking this vital step towards restoring the rule of law and reversing eight years of regulatory overreach.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt gave a speech earlier this summer about the importance of Justice Scalia's jurisprudence and replacing him with a conservative justice:
In thinking about the kind of person who should take his seat on the Court, it is worth reflecting on Justice Scalia’s principles of jurisprudence. One of the chief principles he championed, as a scholar and as a judge, is that the law, whether statutes or the Constitution itself, must be applied according to its text. In other words, judges should not apply the law based on what is good policy or what they suppose Congress may have intended (but did not express) in passing legislation.
In addition, Justice Scalia believed that the words of the law should be understood as they were understood by the people when the law was enacted. . . . There are some who believe that the meanings of words change over time, untethered from any objective measure. Thus what is legal one day may be illegal the next without any textual changes to the law. Justice Scalia rejected this notion. He held fast to the idea that the meaning of laws is fixed by the meaning ascribed to their words at the time they were enacted.
These two principles, textualism and originalism, are rooted in a third characteristic of Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence: an unwavering respect for the idea of popular government. Laws, including the Constitution, receive their legitimacy from the people. The Constitution is not an autonomously evolving document that spins out new “rights” and obligations to which the people have not given their consent. . . .
Along with this opposition to creative interpretation of the Constitution, a fourth characteristic of Justice Scalia’s life work was a conviction that the rights actually guaranteed in the Constitution should be tenaciously defended, from the right of free speech to the rights of criminal defendants. Beyond these enumerated rights, Justice Scalia recognized that the Constitution’s primary protection of liberty is its structure of checks and balances between branches and its division of powers between the federal government and the states.
General Pruitt discussed the important issues that the Supreme Court will decide in the coming years, concluding:
The next Supreme Court justice will not only decide the outcome in pending cases, he or she will also influence the type of cases that make it to the Court in the first place. Businesses are less likely to challenge exorbitant or unfair rulings against them knowing there is a majority of justices hostile to their interests. Conservatives will be less likely to put their time and resources into defending the Constitution if they know the Court won’t enforce it. Meanwhile, liberal groups will be emboldened to bring cases that attempt to roll back First Amendment and Second Amendment freedoms, among others. . . .
The appointment of the next Supreme Court justice could be the most legally significant event for our country in a generation. If the next justice is in the mold of Justices Ginsburg or Sotomayor, the rulings of the Court will shift dramatically to the left. If the next justice shares the principles and philosophy of Justice Scalia, the ideologically balanced Court that we have grown accustomed to in the last quarter century will likely remain. As someone whose job it is to defend the rights of the people of Oklahoma, this turning point is very important to me. But as I hope I have explained, the next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that touch on the rights of every American and that may come to define the nature of our government and our society for many years to come.
As we are increasingly engaged in this year's Presidential election, it is important to remember one of the most important ramifications of who wins in November - the ability to nominate the replacement for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court and likely several other justices as well. Thanks to the leadership of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others, the American people are given a voice in that decision.
