Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
State courts consistently held in favor of allowing fluoridation to continue, analogizing fluoridation to mandatory vaccination and the use of other chemicals to clean the public water supply, both of which had a long-standing history of acceptance by courts. In 1952, a federal regulation was adopted that stated in part, "The Federal Security ...
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.
By law, the EPA had until July 2020 to rule but instead waited until February 2022 to issue its draft rule opposing the state’s plan, and officials used modeling from 2016 as their reason.
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 ...
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.
EPA, a group of states succeeded in compelling EPA to promulgate rules to regulate CO 2 emissions under the clean air act [9] States have spurred federal action by bringing suit against emitters directly, such as when California sued General Motors [10] and a number of states sued power companies, both over carbon emissions. [11]
The Environmental Protection Agency and US Army on Tuesday released a new rule that slashes federally protected water by more than half, following a Supreme Court decision in May that rolled back ...
EPA, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), the Supreme Court ruled against parts of an emissions-related rule created by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, asserting that the agency did not consider the costs of implementation of their rule.