Amicus | Chris Wray Just Made Way For Something Even Worse Than Kash Patel
Dec 14, 2024
auto_awesome
Mark Joseph Stern, a Slate senior writer specializing in legal affairs, analyzes the destabilizing effects of FBI Director Christopher Wray's resignation on the law and national integrity. Sam Sankar, from Earthjustice, discusses a Supreme Court case that could drastically alter environmental protections tied to a railroad project transporting hazardous materials through sensitive areas. Together, they unravel the complexities of legal challenges and the looming threats to both democracy and environmental advocacy.
Christopher Wray's resignation risks compromising the FBI's independence and could lead to a politically motivated appointment by President Trump.
The Supreme Court's review of the National Environmental Policy Act reflects ongoing tensions between infrastructure development and environmental advocacy amidst climate change concerns.
Legal experts emphasize the importance of continuous scrutiny of environmental regulations to counter potential overreach, highlighting the resilience of advocacy groups in this area.
Deep dives
Federal Bureau of Investigation Leadership Changes
The unexpected resignation of FBI Director Christopher Wray raises critical concerns about the agency's independence from the incoming administration. By stepping down, he potentially opens the door for President Trump to appoint a loyalist as acting director, undermining the long-standing precedent that the FBI director should maintain independence. Historically, the director serves a 10-year term to ensure their nonpartisan role, and Wray's departure before the term's conclusion may signal a troubling precedent of submission to presidential influence. This action may weaken the agency's integrity and exacerbate political manipulation within such key institutions.
Implications of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act
By resigning voluntarily, Wray activates the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which allows Trump to fill the position without Senate confirmation, ensuring a potentially favorable appointment for his administration. Critics argue that this law, designed to streamline leadership transitions during vacancies, may inadvertently facilitate political patronage by enabling Trump to install less qualified individuals. This scenario echoes past instances where the former president circumvented traditional appointment processes, raising fears about the thorough vetting of individuals tasked with critical national security roles. Such shifts in appointment practices can alter the operational dynamics of federal agencies, compromising their foundational responsibilities.
NEPA and Environmental Legislation Context
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of significant projects, including infrastructure developments like the proposed railroad in Utah's Uinta Basin. The act requires agencies to analyze reasonably foreseeable consequences, a standard that has evolved through decades of legal interpretations. The Supreme Court's current deliberations on NEPA could significantly redefine the scope of environmental considerations, particularly regarding the nuances of upstream and downstream impacts on local communities. Decisions made regarding NEPA have implications not only for environmental integrity but also for how similar assessments are conducted in the future.
Political Resistance to Environmental Regulations
The podcast highlights ongoing tensions between infrastructure development proponents and environmental advocacy, particularly in the context of the railroad proposal connecting Utah's oil fields to national transport networks. Critics argue that such infrastructure facilitates not only ecological damage but also exacerbates climate change through increased fossil fuel dependency. The Supreme Court's involvement in this matter underscores broader national debates about regulatory overreach versus economic growth, often framed as a battle between progress and environmentalism. As businesses push for expedited development, the ramifications of these legal battles will shape how environmental protections are enacted or dismantled.
Future Impacts on Environmental Advocacy
Sam Sankar from Earthjustice emphasizes the necessity of ongoing legal scrutiny of environmental regulations to prevent potential overreach by the federal government under the new administration. He notes the historical successes of environmental advocacy groups in court, even against politically appointed judges, illustrating the potential for robust legal challenges to continue despite a more conservative judiciary. The conversation touches upon the strategic importance of state courts and legislation as arenas for environmental protection, particularly in progressive jurisdictions. Sankar's insights suggest that while challenges are mounting, there remains a committed network of legal professionals poised to advocate for the planet's well-being.
Last week, we examined the deeply worrying prospect of Kash Patel, FBI director. This week, that possibility became even more worrisome with respect to the future of the FBI, all sparked by current director Christopher Wray’s announcement of his intention to step down. To kick off this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern, who explains why Wray’s decision is very bad news for the law and the rule of law.
Next, the planet: Last summer, we tried to absorb the sheer scale of the shift in the constitutional landscape following a run of cases at the end of the last term that gave the courts the power to reshape the administrative state from the bench, and to impede the tools of the environmental protection trade at a time when the climate is in crisis. But the news cycle moved on and the global climate alarm got snoozed again. That alarm was surely ringing again at One, First Street this week, when a case that could reshape the nation’s biggest environmental law was argued at the Supreme Court.
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Coloradocomes to the court as a dispute over how much review is due to a railroad plan that will carry waxy, crude oil through environmentally sensitive areas, and send said waxy crude on its way to already polluted and health blighted gulf communities. Sam Sankar of Earth Justice was on hand to explain how this weedy case paints a very clear picture of the Supreme Court conservative majority’s fondness for grabbing cases that are vehicles for achieving their preferred policy outcomes, but then finding themselves in a bit of a pickle when its time to craft a new test for an old problem.
Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
