Daniel Farber interviewed by The Federalist Society, Oct. 13, 2016
“What we’re doing a really good job of, at least to the extent that it works, is preparing people to argue cases in the D.C. Circuit. …. One thing I think we’re doing particularly poorly is preparing people to argue and represent clients for participative government lawyers in administrative proceedings, where a lot of the action is.”
Daniel Farber interviewed by Constitution Daily, Oct. 6, 2016
“I don’t think we’re going to see a drastically more liberal- or more activist-oriented judges than the current justices. And one of the reasons for that is the makeup of the Senate. … It’s going to be very hard for Clinton to really get confirmation on anybody much to the left of say, Ginsburg.”
Dan Farber and Ethan Elkind quoted by E&E News, Sept. 12, 2016
“California’s take on climate change is directly at odds with [Republican nominee Donald] Trump’s view that it’s a hoax, so if he becomes president, California will be on its own,” said Dan Farber. … “However, it would provide support for [Democratic nominee Hillary] Clinton’s approach and for the Clean Power Plan.”
“I think it bolsters the Clean Power Plan by showing that one of our biggest states, economy wise, is set to achieve even more aggressive targets than what’s called for in the federal plan,” said Ethan Elkind,
Eric Biber and Daniel A. Farber quoted by Northern California Record, August 3, 2016
The so-called “Chevron deference … is the concept that if a statute in unclear or ambiguous, courts might defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law,” Eric Biber … told the Northern California Record. … “The argument for deferring to agencies is that they have more expertise than courts. Agencies will have economists and scientists, as well as lawyers and engineers on staff, and judges are just lawyers.”
Farber echoed the opinions of others at the conference when he said the court’s lack of reliance on Chevron deference in King proved its justices are “far more removed” from being accountable within a democratic system.
Daniel Farber writes for Daily Journal (registration required), July 11, 2016
The Obama administration’s most important effort to address climate change, the Clean Power Plan (CCP), comes before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit this fall and will almost inevitably go from there to the Supreme Court.
Daniel A. Farber quoted by Bloomberg BNA, June 9, 2016
The retreat is problematic because it shows justices have stepped away from an attitude of humility toward agencies’ expertise, Daniel A. Farber, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley law school said.
Dan Farber interviewed by Politico Magazine, Feb. 14, 2016
Scalia’s prose can make for entertaining and sometimes invigorating reading. But Scalia’s tone was always calculated to deny any legitimacy to the opposing side.
Daniel Farber writes for The Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2016
You might question comparing carbon emissions to ordinary careless behavior. It’s certainly true that identifying who is the injured party in a car accident is easier than defining who is suffering from the additional boost our own actions are giving climate change. But how can we justify carelessly harming others simply because it is difficult to identify who will be hurt?
Daniel Farber quoted in Greenwire, July 24, 2014
Dan Farber … said an argument seeking to undermine the regulations because of the two versions of Section 111(d) has a “gotcha quality” that he expects will fail. “Recent cases,” he said, “show that the court is willing to abandon that kind of formalism when it leads to outcomes that don’t seem sensible in terms of congressional purpose.”
Daniel Farber writes for Politico Magazine, July 1, 2014
Overall, there was a clear trend toward a country that looks a little less like Barack Obama’s America and a little more like Mitt Romney’s. This is an America where corporations have the right to religious freedom, public employee unions have fewer rights to collect dues, the EPA has a little less power to regulate greenhouse gases and wealthy donors are subject to fewer constraints on their political contributions.