This week, briefing began in WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Department of Justice, a case of critical importance to anyone concerned about … More
Last week, the Supreme Court heard argument in the case challenging the WOTUS rule—the controversial rule defining the scope of … More
The Supreme Court is considering an important Takings Clause case on the government’s obligation to pay when it regulates away … More
Climate change challenges conservative and libertarian instincts in a way that makes it harder to believe the evidence, no matter how strong it is. Climate evangelists likewise tend to embrace science and evidence when it confirms their prior political views and reject it otherwise. For progressives and big-government liberals, climate change is easy to accept to the extent it seems to call out for a big-government solution. But even among climate evangelicals, where science and their prior political commitments conflict, politics usually win.
In congressional testimony, I explain how the Endangered Species Act’s consultation process delays infrastructure upgrades and can harm species.
The federal government should transfer permitting authority to states under the Clean Water Act 404 program.
An Endangered Species Act regulation undermines incentives to conserve and recover species, while also harming property owners and the economy.
To protect endangered species, we need to rely more on property rights and less on regulation.
The Endangered Species Act is popular, despite an abysmal recovery rate, because of survey bias, voter ignorance, and poor debate.
Regulations can’t be defended based on overall costs v. benefits, but must be justified on the margins.