Careers

Diversity

With 17 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Civil price-fixing case may shed light on whether plaintiffs can win where the DOJ has lost

Four decades after AT&T was broken up, is Google headed down that dark road?

AD Nauseam

AD Nauseam: A Very Special AD Nauseam – Back to School

Carpenter explores carbon credit ‘conundrum’ companies face

The Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, widely reported as a climate change decision, has the potential to fundamentally limit the power of federal agencies to implement and enforce federal law. The Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council held that courts must defer to "reasonable" executive branch interpretations of "ambiguous" Congressional statutes. Over the past 38 years, the ruling has had profound impacts on the power of federal agencies, allowing them to enact policies and rules to fill in perceived gaps that may not necessarily been expressly authorized by the text of existing law. But on June 30, the Supreme Court set the stage for a potential abandonment of Chevron by ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency to restrict the EPA’s authority to limit carbon emissions from power plants. The 6-3 ruling immediately affects the EPA, but the ramifications of this decision will reverberate throughout the federal government, potentially restricting federal agencies from enacting policies and rules that are not expressly granted by federal law.  BakerHostetler, counsel for Westmoreland Holdings before the Supreme Court in West Virginia, invites you to a webinar that will cover the case and its implications on future regulations. Panelists include attorneys and inside counsel with first-hand knowledge of the case:  <ul> 	<li>Summary of the EPA Action;</li> 	<li>Litigation History – Clean Power Plan Rule to the Affordable Clean Energy Rule;</li> 	<li>Supreme Court Decision; and</li> 	<li>Major Questions Doctrine, the Future of Chevron Deference and Potential Impacts on Federal Administration Power.</li> </ul>  <h5>Presenters​:</h5>  <ul> 	<li>Jeremy Cottrell – General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Westmoreland Mining Holdings</li> 	<li><a href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/MartinTBooher">Martin T. Booher</a> – Environmental Team Leader, BakerHostetler</li> 	<li><a href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/MarkWDeLaquil">Mark W. DeLaquil</a> – Lead Counsel for Westmoreland Mining Holdings in West Virginia, BakerHostetler</li> 	<li><a href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/AndrewMGrossman">Andrew M. Grossman</a> – Appellate and Major Motions Team Co-Leader, BakerHostetler</li> </ul>  Approved for 1.0 hours CLE credit in California, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas. Available via reciprocity in New Jersey. Credit is pending in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, Virginia and Washington. Other states may be available upon request.  Please contact Courtney Daniel at <a href="mailto:cdaniel@bakerlaw.com">cdaniel@bakerlaw.com</a> with questions.

core/freeform

Cleveland

Partner

Martin T. Booher

Washington, D.C.

Mark W. DeLaquil

Andrew M. Grossman

Litigation

Environmental

Appellate and Major Motions

West Virginia v. EPA: The Supreme Court’s Climate Change Decision That Limits Federal Administrative Power

Related Services

Featured Insights