Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act

Abstract

In recent years, federal courts have become increasingly aggressive in shaping regulatory policy, abandoning their traditional deference to bureaucratic expertise. This new judicial activism has been particular evident in regulation of air pollution. R. Shep Melnick analyzes effects a variety of decisions have had on federal air pollution control policy and assesses courts' institutional capacity for policymaking in such a complex arena. In six cases studies of environmental programs or issues he examines interplay among courts, Environmental Protection Agency, Congress, and White House. The conventional wisdom is that courts have improved environmental policymaking, but Melnick concludes that as a whole the consequences of action under Clean Air Act are neither random nor beneficial. He finds that court action has encouraged legislators and administrators to establish goals without considering how they can be achieved, widening gap between promise and performance. The results, he charges, have been increased cynicism, serious inefficiencies and inequities, and a lack of rational debate. An analysis of institutional characteristics of judicial branch reveals how these problems have come about and why they are likely to afflict other programs as well as environmental regulation. The author proposes several reforms to improve courts' ability to handle regulatory cases.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 183 citations exist upstream.