The Coalition for Sensible Safeguards is an alliance of more than 180 consumer, labor, scientific, research, faith, community, environmental, small business, good government, public health and public interest groups — representing millions of Americans. We are joined in the belief that our country’s system of regulatory safeguards should secure our quality of life, pave the way for a sound economy, and benefit us all. Follow us @goodregs.
Latest Regulatory News 2024
Trump-era Interior Department Secretary David Bernhardt is dealing a one-two punch to abortion care and agency powers in an upcoming Supreme Court battle royal. In an amicus brief docketed Wednesday, Bernhardt told the high court that Food and Drug Administration decisions to increase access to abortion pills is illustrative of a broader problem of courts deferring to federal agencies’ expertise. The former Interior secretary’s brief relates to a pair of upcoming Supreme Court cases that pit the FDA against anti-abortion groups that want to limit access to mifepristone, a drug the agency approved in 2000 as a safe and effective method for terminating early pregnancies.
Every new administration that wins power away from the opposing party contends that whatever its predecessors did was terrible and that victory constitutes a popular mandate to fix or get rid of it all. Elections have consequences, politicians love to remind us, and a big one entails trying to change everything, right away. It is possible to read “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise” — an 887-page document proposing to remake the executive branch, department by department, agency by agency, office by office — as one more go-round in this Washington tradition. With contributions by dozens of conservative thinkers and activists under the leadership of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the book announces itself as part of a “unified effort to be ready for the next conservative administration to govern at 12:00 noon, Jan. 20, 2025.” There is plenty here that one would expect from a contemporary conservative agenda: calls for lower corporate taxes and against abortion rights; criticism of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and the “climate fanaticism” of the Biden administration; and plans to militarize the southern border and target the “administrative state,” which is depicted here as a powerful and unmanageable federal bureaucracy bent on left-wing social engineering. Yet what is most striking about the book is not the specific policy agenda it outlines but how far the authors are willing to go in pursuit of that agenda and how reckless their assumptions are about law, power and public service.
EPA has removed existing natural gas facilities from its climate rule on power plants, a significant weakening of a key regulation on greenhouse gases. Five people briefed on the change said existing combined-cycle natural gas turbines would be excluded from the rule, which EPA is planning to send to the White House for review Friday. The rule will cover existing coal-fired and new gas plants and is expected to be finalized in April. The move comes as the Biden administration has diluted other upcoming climate rules on vehicles and corporations.
One of the most vocal climate advocates on Capitol Hill is railing against the Biden administration’s choice to punt on placing new limits on emissions from existing gas-fired power plants. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, on Thursday eviscerated the decision, saying it “makes no sense.” It marks a rare break between Whitehouse and President Joe Biden’s EPA. It also comes as the administration has moved to weaken some climate actions, including those involving reporting of emissions from large companies and emissions in cars.
Two business heavyweights are backing Exxon Mobil’s bid to quash investor-led climate resolutions — and previewing their critiques of a federal agency that is poised to advance sweeping new requirements for companies to report on supply chain emissions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable on Thursday filed an amicus brief in federal court, siding with Exxon’s challenge against a now-defunct shareholder proposal that would have forced the oil company to reduce climate pollution.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s challenge to Kroger Co.'s $24.6 billion acquisition of Albertsons Cos. tees up a new antitrust argument impacting labor markets: The deal would hurt competition among unionized grocery workers. The FTC’s emphasis on the effect on unions brings a fresh dimension to its interest in using competition law to police labor. The FTC move against the deal between the two largest unionized US grocery chains highlights collective bargaining as a competition concern.