« Ind. Decisions - "Appeals judges say it was not enough to get sidewalks approved after the fact" | Main | Law - Stanford Law School announces “a new model for legal education” »

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Law - More on global warming, federal preemption issues

Following up on this entry from last weekend ("Another important oral argument before the Supreme Court next week") on global warming, and this one ("Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Next Week in States' Challenge to 'Preemption' of Regulation") on administrative law, are several reports on yesterday's oral arguments.

"Federal Oversight of Banks Risks Abuse, States Argue" is the headline to a story by Tomoeh Murakami Tse in the Washington Post. A quote:

In oral arguments, E. John Blanchard, who represented Michigan and whose case is supported by the 49 other states, argued that "preemption" of local authority by the OCC would prevent states from protecting their residents. "Michigan and the states want to be able to help their citizens with abusive and predatory lending complaints," he said.

A lawyer for the banking industry countered that courts have long acknowledged the primacy of federal regulators over local authorities when evaluating large banks and that this instance was no different. Bankers have also complained of the burden of excessive regulation on the local and federal levels.

"The court has recognized for a century that in that area, when national banks have powers, including incidental powers recognized by the comptroller, they generally preempt any state law," said Robert A. Long Jr., who represents Wachovia, but whose case is supported by the entire banking industry.

Roberts said it seemed that banks wanted to be viewed as federally governed on regulation issues but state-based to shelter themselves from liability issues. "You are really trying to have your cake and eat it too," he said.

Also in the Post, Robert Barnes writes in a story headlined "Court Hears Global Warming Case: Justices to Decide Challenge on Greenhouse Gas Emissions"

The NY Times' Linda Greenhouse writes on the global warming issue, including this:

By the end of the argument there appeared a strong likelihood that the court would divide 5 to 4 on the standing question, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy holding the deciding vote. His relatively few comments were ambiguous. Early in the argument he challenged the assertion by Mr. Milkey, the states’ lawyer, that the case “turns on ordinary principles of statutory interpretation and administrative law” and that there was no need for the court “to pass judgment on the science of climate change.”

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 30, 2006 03:02 PM
Posted to Administrative Law | Environment | General Law Related