It’s become a predictable cycle: A Republican administration rolls back burdensome environmental regulations, and an activist group rushes to court and gets a friendly district judge to issue an injunction. [emphasis, links added]
The result? Months or even years of costly delays sideline policies before they can take effect.
This isn’t about winning on the legal merits—it’s about slowing the process to a crawl.
Groups opposed to coal, oil, and natural gas know they’ll likely lose on appeal, where nationwide injunctions belong, but that’s irrelevant.
By the time the courts finally rule, energy investments have stalled, industries have moved abroad, and a new administration may have taken over. The process itself is the punishment.
Trump’s push to reopen coal-fired power plants is an excellent example. Trump has signaled reversing draconian regulations that made coal production too costly.
But already, lawsuits are looming.
Expect environmental groups to file their briefs in front of the same ‘friendly’ judges who reliably issue nationwide injunctions. There are over 600 district court judges in the U.S., yet the same handful of judges are deciding national policy.
And this legal warfare, or lawfare, isn’t limited to coal. The Biden admin used it to shut down the Keystone XL pipeline.
Red states have tried the same tactic against Biden’s green agenda, but the difference is striking—conservative judges are less likely to issue sweeping, activist rulings.
When conservative district judges ruled against the Biden admin, they were usually narrow and targeted. Rarely were they nationwide unless heard by an appeals court.
For example, in February alone, Trump faced 15 injunctions. In his first term, he faced 64 injunctions, while Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations saw 32 collectively.
At stake is more than just coal.
It is a handful of judges that can override our elected leadership and dictate America’s energy policy, while democracy takes a backseat to courtroom contrivances.
The real fight isn’t just in the courts—it’s against a system that allows for endless legal obstructions over the will of the voters.
Thomas Richard is the editor of Climate Change Dispatch
