npr--2020-12-29--Religion, Abortion, Guns And Race. Just The Start Of A New Supreme Court Menu

Religion , Abortion , Guns And Race .
Just The Start Of A New Supreme Court Menu In January , the U.S. Supreme Court embarks on the second half of a term with a fortified 6-to-3 conservative majority .
But unlike the first half of the term , there will be no norm-busting President Trump often railing at the court 's election decisions .
In tone , President Biden probably will be the functional opposite , but his policies are likely to be greeted with more skepticism .
For decades , the court 's five-justice conservative majority was split between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more conservative direction and others who wanted to move more aggressively .
But now , with the more centrist conservatives retired and three Trump appointees on the court , there is a conservative supermajority of six , meaning one vote to spare .
No longer , as during the last term , does the reliably conservative but more incrementalist Chief Justice John Roberts have the controlling vote .
The other five can now prevail without him .
Bottom line : The current court may well turn out to be the most conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , abortion , gun rights and race , for example , there is a solid majority to change the law and ... move whip quick , '' says Supreme Court advocate and SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein .
Already argued this term , but not decided yet , are two big cases .
One tests whether the Affordable Care Act , known as Obamacare , must be struck down entirely because one provision — the so-called mandate — was eliminated by Congress .
But the law , including the mandate , has already been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Republicans in Congress have failed dozens of times to kill the ACA , even when they controlled the House , the Senate and the White House .
In the meantime , Obamacare has become a very popular program , and if the court were to declare the entire law invalid at this late date , Republicans could end up in the position of a dog that chases the car for years and finally catches it .
It could be bloody .
The other case heard earlier this term tests whether the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foster care contracts to Catholic Social Services because CSS , based on religious objections , refuses to screen LGBT couples , as required by the city 's anti-discrimination laws .
The tea leaves , as of now , indicate CSS will win .
If so , the power of government to make contracts — the one area long viewed as relatively immune to religious challenges — would become fair game for religious objectors .
It would be `` quite a significant departure from what the court might have done 15 or 20 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of South Texas College of Law Houston and co-author of An Introduction to Constitutional Law : 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know .
A decision in favor of CSS would also be quite a departure from the court 's 1990 decision written by conservative icon Antonin Scalia .
That 6-to-3 ruling declared that a valid and neutrally applied law is constitutional even if it has some incidental negative effects on some religious groups .
As Scalia put it back then , allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind . ''
Still , the current court appears headed in the direction that Scalia warned against .
Indeed , even before the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett , there was a firm conservative majority in religious liberty cases .
The only religious liberty case in which Chief Justice Roberts split with fellow conservatives involved the public health measures that governors have taken during the pandemic .
Early on , Roberts sided with the liberals in allowing governors to limit attendance at religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus .
But that was before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
In what could be a harbinger of things to come , Roberts ' vote became irrelevant after Barrett joined the court and provided a fifth vote against Gov .
Andrew Cuomo 's actions in New York .
Similar orders limiting church and synagogue attendance were soon struck down .
On a different question , the executive power of the presidency , the Supreme Court 's conservative majority has generally deferred to Trump 's muscular assertions of presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court majority be similarly deferential to Biden ?
`` I think the short answer is no , '' says University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck .
`` Some of that is going to reflect ... the fact that the court will be more suspicious and skeptical of some of the policies that the Biden administration attempts to pursue by executive order . ''
SCOTUSblog 's Goldstein agrees , noting that `` historically , the Supreme Court 's view about whether a president has powers [ to do certain things ] has tended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority like the president and his policies . ''
Goldstein adds that it will be `` really fascinating '' to see whether a court that has `` breathed more life '' into presidential powers `` will stick with that even if they do n't like the policies of a much more liberal president . ''
Both Goldstein and Vladeck note , however , that the conservative majority has been cutting back on the regulatory power of administrative agencies to carry out objectives spelled out in legislation .
That trend , they observe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more difficult for agencies to make rules carrying out everything from environmental to consumer protection laws .
`` This term is like an iceberg , '' says Goldstein .
`` There are big cases above the surface , '' like the ACA case .
But below the surface , there are cases being pushed by big business that could make it hard for `` the little guy '' to go to court and harder for agencies to enact regulations .
If big business prevails , he maintains , `` it 'll be an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the hot-button issues of abortion , guns and race , the court 's conservative majority is most likely to start moving aggressively next term and thereafter .
Will Roe v. Wade , the court 's 47-year-old abortion rights precedent , be overturned ?
There are two schools of thought on that .
One is that the court will systematically hollow out the right to abortion so that it is a right on paper only .
The other school of thought is that leaving Roe a shell is not enough for those opposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think , a galvanizing view within the pro-life movement that the time has come to call the question , '' observes New York University law professor Melissa Murray .
If Roe is to be overturned , however , it likely will take more than a year or two to come to fruition .
Former Obama-era Solicitor General Donald Verrilli has said that he thinks it likely will happen within five years or so .
On guns , though , the court looks — for the first time — to have a clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last term , the court once again punted , and punted again on the issue , declining to hear 10 gun-rights cases .
Presumably , Chief Justice Roberts ' then-deciding vote was still in doubt .
But now , with Barrett newly on the court and Ginsburg gone , there appear to be five conservative votes ready to march down the path of expansive gun rights , and Second Amendment activists are teeing up new cases .
`` I can tell you people are getting more aggressive , '' says professor Blackman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` are emboldened to try to push new frontiers '' now .
Election cases are also before the court , though none that will undo Trump 's defeat .
But , left over from Trump 's fight , there is a possible case from Pennsylvania testing whether state supreme courts have the authority to interpret state laws and state constitutions in federal elections .
The justices declined to review the case prior to the election — and affected ballots , relatively few in number , would not have changed the outcome .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case to resolve the issue .
Also on the docket are cases involving state laws that make it more difficult to vote .
In 2013 , the high court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act .
Roberts confidently wrote , `` Our country has changed , '' and he said that the protections in the law were no longer needed .
Within days , though , Republican-dominated state legislatures in the South began writing new laws that made it , once again , more difficult to vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further limit minority influence in state and federal legislatures .
So , will that reality on the ground have any influence in the current voting rights cases before the court ?
No , say voting rights experts .
UT 's Vladeck says that while the current court did hold the line against Trump 's post-election attempts to change the outcome , the court 's conservatives believe states should be free to enact pre-election laws that restrict early voting and voting by mail , while at the same time allowing states to purge voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The conservative majority does not see such restrictions as aimed at intentionally stacking the deck against poor and minority voters .
`` For the chief justice and easily a majority of this conservative Supreme Court , their views about race are fully baked , '' says SCOTUSblog 's Goldstein .
In the same vein , by next term the court will likely hear arguments in one of several cases testing affirmative action in higher-education admissions .
The court , for a half-century , has repeatedly ruled that some consideration of race in college @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quota is not .
But now , there may well be a conservative majority to reverse those rulings and bar all consideration of racial diversity in college admissions .
After that , affirmative action in employment could be next .
In the coming year , other key developments also could shape the Supreme Court 's future .
Eighty-two-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer , one of the court 's three remaining liberals , could step down .
But he may feel constrained by the fact that Republicans currently control the U.S. Senate , and GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use his power as Senate majority leader to block or advance Supreme Court nominees based solely on whether the nominating president is a fellow Republican or a Democrat .
So , Breyer might stay his hand .
If , however , the Democrats win two Senate seats in Georgia in January , giving Democrats the upper hand in the Senate for the first time in 10 years , Breyer may well pull the trigger on retirement .

Religion, Abortion, Guns And Race. Just The Start Of A New Supreme Court Menu
Enlarge this image toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP J. Scott Applewhite/AP
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court embarks on the second half of a term with a fortified 6-to-3 conservative majority. But unlike the first half of the term, there will be no norm-busting President Trump often railing at the court's election decisions. In tone, President Biden probably will be the functional opposite, but his policies are likely to be greeted with more skepticism.
For decades, the court's five-justice conservative majority was split between those who wanted to move slowly in a more conservative direction and others who wanted to move more aggressively. But now, with the more centrist conservatives retired and three Trump appointees on the court, there is a conservative supermajority of six, meaning one vote to spare.
No longer, as during the last term, does the reliably conservative but more incrementalist Chief Justice John Roberts have the controlling vote. The other five can now prevail without him.
Bottom line: The current court may well turn out to be the most conservative since the 1930s.
"On religion, abortion, gun rights and race, for example, there is a solid majority to change the law and ... move whip quick," says Supreme Court advocate and SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein.
Obamacare and religion
Already argued this term, but not decided yet, are two big cases. One tests whether the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, must be struck down entirely because one provision — the so-called mandate — was eliminated by Congress. But the law, including the mandate, has already been upheld twice before by the high court.
Republicans in Congress have failed dozens of times to kill the ACA, even when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. In the meantime, Obamacare has become a very popular program, and if the court were to declare the entire law invalid at this late date, Republicans could end up in the position of a dog that chases the car for years and finally catches it. It could be bloody.
The other case heard earlier this term tests whether the city of Philadelphia may refuse to award some foster care contracts to Catholic Social Services because CSS, based on religious objections, refuses to screen LGBT couples, as required by the city's anti-discrimination laws.
The tea leaves, as of now, indicate CSS will win. If so, the power of government to make contracts — the one area long viewed as relatively immune to religious challenges — would become fair game for religious objectors.
It would be "quite a significant departure from what the court might have done 15 or 20 years ago," observes professor Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law Houston and co-author of An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know.
A decision in favor of CSS would also be quite a departure from the court's 1990 decision written by conservative icon Antonin Scalia. That 6-to-3 ruling declared that a valid and neutrally applied law is constitutional even if it has some incidental negative effects on some religious groups. As Scalia put it back then, allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
Still, the current court appears headed in the direction that Scalia warned against. Indeed, even before the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, there was a firm conservative majority in religious liberty cases.
The only religious liberty case in which Chief Justice Roberts split with fellow conservatives involved the public health measures that governors have taken during the pandemic. Early on, Roberts sided with the liberals in allowing governors to limit attendance at religious services in order to curb the spread of the coronavirus. But that was before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In what could be a harbinger of things to come, Roberts' vote became irrelevant after Barrett joined the court and provided a fifth vote against Gov. Andrew Cuomo's actions in New York. Similar orders limiting church and synagogue attendance were soon struck down.
Executive power
On a different question, the executive power of the presidency, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has generally deferred to Trump's muscular assertions of presidential power. So, will the conservative court majority be similarly deferential to Biden?
"I think the short answer is no," says University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck. "Some of that is going to reflect ... the fact that the court will be more suspicious and skeptical of some of the policies that the Biden administration attempts to pursue by executive order."
SCOTUSblog's Goldstein agrees, noting that "historically, the Supreme Court's view about whether a president has powers [to do certain things] has tended to track whether the justices in the majority like the president and his policies." Goldstein adds that it will be "really fascinating" to see whether a court that has "breathed more life" into presidential powers "will stick with that even if they don't like the policies of a much more liberal president."
Both Goldstein and Vladeck note, however, that the conservative majority has been cutting back on the regulatory power of administrative agencies to carry out objectives spelled out in legislation. That trend, they observe, is likely to increase, making it more difficult for agencies to make rules carrying out everything from environmental to consumer protection laws.
"This term is like an iceberg," says Goldstein. "There are big cases above the surface," like the ACA case. But below the surface, there are cases being pushed by big business that could make it hard for "the little guy" to go to court and harder for agencies to enact regulations. If big business prevails, he maintains, "it'll be an earthquake" in terms of consequences.
Abortion and guns
On the hot-button issues of abortion, guns and race, the court's conservative majority is most likely to start moving aggressively next term and thereafter.
Will Roe v. Wade, the court's 47-year-old abortion rights precedent, be overturned? There are two schools of thought on that. One is that the court will systematically hollow out the right to abortion so that it is a right on paper only.
The other school of thought is that leaving Roe a shell is not enough for those opposed to abortion. "There is, I think, a galvanizing view within the pro-life movement that the time has come to call the question," observes New York University law professor Melissa Murray.
If Roe is to be overturned, however, it likely will take more than a year or two to come to fruition. Former Obama-era Solicitor General Donald Verrilli has said that he thinks it likely will happen within five years or so.
On guns, though, the court looks — for the first time — to have a clear majority that is hostile to gun regulation. Last term, the court once again punted, and punted again on the issue, declining to hear 10 gun-rights cases. Presumably, Chief Justice Roberts' then-deciding vote was still in doubt.
But now, with Barrett newly on the court and Ginsburg gone, there appear to be five conservative votes ready to march down the path of expansive gun rights, and Second Amendment activists are teeing up new cases.
"I can tell you people are getting more aggressive," says professor Blackman, a gun-rights advocate. Gun-rights groups "are emboldened to try to push new frontiers" now.
Election cases and race plus affirmative action
Election cases are also before the court, though none that will undo Trump's defeat. But, left over from Trump's fight, there is a possible case from Pennsylvania testing whether state supreme courts have the authority to interpret state laws and state constitutions in federal elections. The justices declined to review the case prior to the election — and affected ballots, relatively few in number, would not have changed the outcome. But the justices may yet agree to hear the case to resolve the issue.
Also on the docket are cases involving state laws that make it more difficult to vote. In 2013, the high court struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. Roberts confidently wrote, "Our country has changed," and he said that the protections in the law were no longer needed. Within days, though, Republican-dominated state legislatures in the South began writing new laws that made it, once again, more difficult to vote, and they started redrawing legislative lines to further limit minority influence in state and federal legislatures.
So, will that reality on the ground have any influence in the current voting rights cases before the court? No, say voting rights experts.
UT's Vladeck says that while the current court did hold the line against Trump's post-election attempts to change the outcome, the court's conservatives believe states should be free to enact pre-election laws that restrict early voting and voting by mail, while at the same time allowing states to purge voting roles and tighten voter ID requirements. The conservative majority does not see such restrictions as aimed at intentionally stacking the deck against poor and minority voters.
"For the chief justice and easily a majority of this conservative Supreme Court, their views about race are fully baked," says SCOTUSblog's Goldstein.
In the same vein, by next term the court will likely hear arguments in one of several cases testing affirmative action in higher-education admissions. The court, for a half-century, has repeatedly ruled that some consideration of race in college admissions is permissible, but a racial quota is not.
But now, there may well be a conservative majority to reverse those rulings and bar all consideration of racial diversity in college admissions. After that, affirmative action in employment could be next.
In the coming year, other key developments also could shape the Supreme Court's future.
Retirements on the horizon?
Eighty-two-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the court's three remaining liberals, could step down. But he may feel constrained by the fact that Republicans currently control the U.S. Senate, and GOP leader Mitch McConnell has never hesitated to use his power as Senate majority leader to block or advance Supreme Court nominees based solely on whether the nominating president is a fellow Republican or a Democrat.
So, Breyer might stay his hand. If, however, the Democrats win two Senate seats in Georgia in January, giving Democrats the upper hand in the Senate for the first time in 10 years, Breyer may well pull the trigger on retirement.


npr--2020-12-29--'That Terrifies Me': Trump Rule Allows Natural Gas Transport By Rail In Dense Areas

'That Terrifies Me ' : Trump Rule Allows Natural Gas Transport By Rail In Dense Areas In an effort to boost natural gas exports , the Trump administration has reversed longstanding federal policy and approved transport of gas by rail anywhere in the country .
Opposition has come from Hollywood stars , state attorneys general and local residents who worry about the danger this posiposes .
But plans are moving ahead for a New Jersey project that calls for one of the longest such transport routes in the country : 200 miles through densely populated areas of the East Coast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shale would first be sent by pipeline to a new liquefaction plant in the rural northeast part of the state .
Refrigeration units would chill it to negative-260 degrees Fahrenheit , at which point it becomes liquid and easier to ship .
The part of the plan that scares a lot of people is the next step — transporting the gas by truck or rail down the busy I-95 corridor to a planned export terminal along the Delaware River in Gloucester County , New Jersey .
`` That terrifies me , '' says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her family , including her three-year-old son Theo .
She points to where rail cars full of highly flammable liquefied natural gas — or LNG — would roll about a block and a half away from her house .
`` That train track that you could skip on down to in about a minute and a half . ''
A daycare center sits right next to the gate of the planned export terminal .
Pipelines are the more common way to move gas long distances , but battles over them have delayed or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also allowed to transport LNG .
But using rail cars in densely populated areas had been limited until the new rule took effect in August .
Even before that , Delaware River Partners , a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy , which has ties to President Trump , secured a special federal permit to move the LNG by rail .
It allows two 100-car trains to transport the gas each day .
In this rust-belt region of New Jersey the project does have support , including from building trade unions and powerful state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his grandfather worked at a shuttered DuPont dynamite plant that will house the planned LNG export terminal .
`` That site will create jobs as it once did , contribute to the tax base as it once did , and be an important economic driver for people to make a living and feed their families , '' says Burzichelli .
He says safety issues should be addressed , but that rail cars carry much more hazardous materials through the region every day .
`` The history of moving this stuff is pretty sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule does require rail cars to be built with a thicker outer tank than is mandated for other hazardous cryogenic liquids like ethylene and ethane .
( Although it 's unclear if that applies to projects like this one , greenlighted earlier through a special permit . )
Ray Mentzer , a chemical engineer at Purdue University , spent his career working on LNG projects for Exxon Mobil .
He says the specially designed containers that transport hydrocarbons have a good safety record .
But he says transporting the gas through densely populated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a leak .
`` It 's not flammable until it 's vaporized , but it 's going to be vaporized pretty darn quickly and then it 's going to seek an ignition source , '' he says .
`` Believe me , it will find an ignition source pretty darn readily . ''
The developers of the New Jersey export project — New Fortress Energy and Delaware River Partners — did not respond to multiple requests for an interview , and would not confirm details of their plans .
Rail companies lobbied for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accidents .
Earlier this year , Ian Jefferies , CEO of the Association of American Railroads , told NPR `` the track record speaks for itself : 99.99 % of all hazmat moved by rail reaches its destination without any incident whatsoever . ''
He also said industry uses `` risk-based routing analysis to ensure that railroads are using the lowest risk routes . ''
Fifteen state Attorneys General , including those in Pennsylvania , New Jersey and Delaware , have challenged the move saying it put people 's lives at risk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our families expect our government to put their safety first , not put them in harm 's way , '' said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement .
Becerra is now president-elect Joe Biden 's nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary .
Despite joining that suit , New Jersey recently signed off on construction of a dock for the LNG export project , although N.J .
Governor Phil Murphy says the state `` will explore all avenues within its authority to prevent the use of this dock for LNG transport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenged a number of state and federal permits for the project , saying a thorough Environmental Impact Statement was never done .
`` The Biden Administration could step in and set a policy that this project , and all other LNG export projects , require comprehensive environmental review , '' says the network 's deputy director Tracy Carluccio .
Standing on her porch along the route to the planned export terminal , Vanessa Keegan worries that transporting LNG by rail is untested .
`` If an accident happens , '' she says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the next day and say , 'Look , I told you so . '
'' She also thinks fossil fuel projects like this should be abandoned in favor of renewables like wind or solar .
In fact , if the export facility gets built , none of the gas traveling through the area will go to power New Jersey homes .
The state is planning a large offshore wind farm to help reach its goal of using all clean energy by 2050 .

'That Terrifies Me': Trump Rule Allows Natural Gas Transport By Rail In Dense Areas
Enlarge this image toggle caption Emma Lee/WHYY Emma Lee/WHYY
In an effort to boost natural gas exports, the Trump administration has reversed longstanding federal policy and approved transport of gas by rail anywhere in the country. Opposition has come from Hollywood stars, state attorneys general and local residents who worry about the danger this poses. But plans are moving ahead for a New Jersey project that calls for one of the longest such transport routes in the country: 200 miles through densely populated areas of the East Coast.
The gas from Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale would first be sent by pipeline to a new liquefaction plant in the rural northeast part of the state. Refrigeration units would chill it to negative-260 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point it becomes liquid and easier to ship. The part of the plan that scares a lot of people is the next step — transporting the gas by truck or rail down the busy I-95 corridor to a planned export terminal along the Delaware River in Gloucester County, New Jersey.
"That terrifies me," says Vanessa Keegan, who lives nearby with her family, including her three-year-old son Theo. She points to where rail cars full of highly flammable liquefied natural gas — or LNG — would roll about a block and a half away from her house. "That train track that you could skip on down to in about a minute and a half."
A daycare center sits right next to the gate of the planned export terminal.
Pipelines are the more common way to move gas long distances, but battles over them have delayed or even scrapped some projects. Trucks are also allowed to transport LNG. But using rail cars in densely populated areas had been limited until the new rule took effect in August.
Even before that, Delaware River Partners, a subsidiary of New Fortress Energy, which has ties to President Trump, secured a special federal permit to move the LNG by rail. It allows two 100-car trains to transport the gas each day.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Emma Lee/WHYY Emma Lee/WHYY
In this rust-belt region of New Jersey the project does have support, including from building trade unions and powerful state lawmakers. State Assemblyman John Burzichelli says his grandfather worked at a shuttered DuPont dynamite plant that will house the planned LNG export terminal.
"That site will create jobs as it once did, contribute to the tax base as it once did, and be an important economic driver for people to make a living and feed their families," says Burzichelli.
He says safety issues should be addressed, but that rail cars carry much more hazardous materials through the region every day. "The history of moving this stuff is pretty sound," he says.
The new rule does require rail cars to be built with a thicker outer tank than is mandated for other hazardous cryogenic liquids like ethylene and ethane. (Although it's unclear if that applies to projects like this one, greenlighted earlier through a special permit.)
Ray Mentzer, a chemical engineer at Purdue University, spent his career working on LNG projects for Exxon Mobil. He says the specially designed containers that transport hydrocarbons have a good safety record. But he says transporting the gas through densely populated areas increases the risk if there's a leak.
"It's not flammable until it's vaporized, but it's going to be vaporized pretty darn quickly and then it's going to seek an ignition source," he says. "Believe me, it will find an ignition source pretty darn readily."
The developers of the New Jersey export project — New Fortress Energy and Delaware River Partners — did not respond to multiple requests for an interview, and would not confirm details of their plans.
Rail companies lobbied for the rule and downplay the potential for accidents.
Earlier this year, Ian Jefferies, CEO of the Association of American Railroads, told NPR "the track record speaks for itself: 99.99% of all hazmat moved by rail reaches its destination without any incident whatsoever." He also said industry uses "risk-based routing analysis to ensure that railroads are using the lowest risk routes."
Fifteen state Attorneys General, including those in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, have challenged the move saying it put people's lives at risk.
"We're going to court because our families expect our government to put their safety first, not put them in harm's way," said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement. Becerra is now president-elect Joe Biden's nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary.
Despite joining that suit, New Jersey recently signed off on construction of a dock for the LNG export project, although N.J. Governor Phil Murphy says the state "will explore all avenues within its authority to prevent the use of this dock for LNG transport."
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network has challenged a number of state and federal permits for the project, saying a thorough Environmental Impact Statement was never done.
"The Biden Administration could step in and set a policy that this project, and all other LNG export projects, require comprehensive environmental review," says the network's deputy director Tracy Carluccio.
Standing on her porch along the route to the planned export terminal, Vanessa Keegan worries that transporting LNG by rail is untested. "If an accident happens," she says, "we don't get to show up the next day and say, 'Look, I told you so.'"
She also thinks fossil fuel projects like this should be abandoned in favor of renewables like wind or solar.
In fact, if the export facility gets built, none of the gas traveling through the area will go to power New Jersey homes. The state is planning a large offshore wind farm to help reach its goal of using all clean energy by 2050.


npr--2020-12-29--The Spectacular Rise Of SPACs: The Backwards IPO That's Taking Over Wall Street

The Spectacular Rise Of SPACs : The Backwards IPO That 's Taking Over Wall Street This year , the hottest trend in Wall Street could be summed up in one strange and unfamiliar word : SPAC .
Shaquille O'Neal 's got a SPAC .
Former House Speaker Paul Ryan 's got a SPAC .
Famed investor Bill Ackman launched a $ 4 billion SPAC .
And a 25-year-old became the youngest self-made billionaire thanks to — you guessed it — a SPAC .
So what is a SPAC ?
A `` special purpose acquisition company '' is a way for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the paperwork of a traditional IPO , or initial public offering .
In an IPO , a company announces it wants to go public , then discloses a lot of details about its business operations .
After that , investors put money into the company in exchange for shares .
A SPAC flips that process around .
Investors pool their money together first , with no idea what company they 're investing in .
The SPAC goes public as a shell company .
The required disclosures are easier than for a regular IPO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't have any business operations to describe .
Then , generally , the SPAC goes out and looks for a real company that wants to go public , and they merge together .
The company gets the stock ticker and the pile of money , much more quickly than through a normal IPO .
The investors now own stock in a real company , not just a shell company .
And the sponsor who organized the SPAC gets a big chunk of the company as the reward for their efforts .
For the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the fringes of the financial world .
`` They have this sort of shady origin story , '' says Usha Rodrigues , a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law .
Today 's SPACs are descended from the `` blank-check corporations '' of the 1980s , which `` really had a bad reputation , '' Rodrigues says .
They were so infamous for scamming investors that a federal law was passed to crack down on them .
Along the way , the blank-check model was reinvented as a SPAC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , if an investor did n't approve of the company a SPAC sponsor chose to merge with , he or she could get her money back plus interest .
But they remained unpopular .
Until now .
IPOs , merger and acquisitions and deal-making in general are all up sharply right now — no wonder , as the stock market is currently booming .
But SPACs , specifically , are surging like nothing else .
SPAC launches have quadrupled last year , and an astonishing number of SPAC combinations ( the transaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been announced .
`` I 've probably done , you know , one or two SPAC combinations a year for the last five years — until this year , '' says Sarah Morgan , a lawyer with the large energy-focused law firm Vinson and Elkins .
`` This year the market just exploded .
[ SPACs ] are over 50 percent of my practice this year . ''
SPACs are sparking new attention in part because their built-in advantages — speed , control and less uncertainty for founders who want to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year marked by volatility .
Austin Russell is the CEO of Luminar , a company that makes LIDAR — technology that detects surrounding objects , sort of like radar but using lasers — for self-driving vehicles .
He founded the company as a teenager , and now Luminar has contracts with companies like Volvo .
It was time to go public .
Russell said that `` mechanically and financially , '' a SPAC just made sense — and you ca n't argue with the speed .
`` You got through the process end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like four months , as opposed to having to spend huge time and distraction for the better part of a year or two , '' he says .
But Russell did n't agree to a SPAC until he 'd seen several other `` very legitimate '' companies go public through the process .
That 's another key element in the meteoric rise of SPACs : after high-profile , well-regarded companies and investors started getting involved in SPACs , other people were more willing to give it a shot .
As Russell put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cool . ''
Russell completed his company 's SPAC merger earlier this month — a transaction that made him Forbes ' youngest self-made billionaire .
SPACS can also mean big bucks for the sponsors who organize them , who are rewarded with a big chunk of equity when they close a deal .
In fact , sponsors can make so much money if they complete a SPAC that some critics worry there 's an incentive to merge with a mediocre company just to get their payday .
And that raises a big question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for investors .
The stock market is booming now , and SPACs are a boom-within-a-boom , but will that actually lead to returns ?
Some of this year 's SPACs have performed badly on the stock market , and others have raised bigger concerns .
After zero emission truckmaker Nikola went public through a SPAC , it was accused of fraud , which the company denies .
Today 's SPACs are much safer investments than the fraudulent blank-check companies of the '80s , says Rodrigues , but the same streamlined , speedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the perils for investors .
`` The flip side of making things easier for companies is inevitably that the risk of fraud to investors goes up , '' she says .
`` I do n't know any way to square that circle . ''

The Spectacular Rise Of SPACs: The Backwards IPO That's Taking Over Wall Street
Enlarge this image toggle caption Anadolu Agency/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images Anadolu Agency/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
This year, the hottest trend on Wall Street could be summed up in one strange and unfamiliar word: SPAC.
Shaquille O'Neal's got a SPAC. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan's got a SPAC. Famed investor Bill Ackman launched a $4 billion SPAC. And a 25-year-old became the youngest self-made billionaire thanks to — you guessed it — a SPAC.
So what is a SPAC? A "special purpose acquisition company" is a way for a company to go public without all the paperwork of a traditional IPO, or initial public offering.
In an IPO, a company announces it wants to go public, then discloses a lot of details about its business operations. After that, investors put money into the company in exchange for shares.
A SPAC flips that process around. Investors pool their money together first, with no idea what company they're investing in. The SPAC goes public as a shell company. The required disclosures are easier than those for a regular IPO, because a pile of money doesn't have any business operations to describe.
Then, generally, the SPAC goes out and looks for a real company that wants to go public, and they merge together. The company gets the stock ticker and the pile of money much more quickly than through a normal IPO.
The investors now own stock in a real company, not just a shell company. And the sponsor who put the work into organizing the SPAC gets a big chunk of the company as a reward.
For the last two decades, SPACs have existed on the fringes of the financial world.
"They have this sort of shady origin story," says Usha Rodrigues, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law.
Today's SPACs are descended from the "blank-check corporations" of the 1980s, which "really had a bad reputation," Rodrigues says.
They were so infamous for scamming investors that a federal law was passed to crack down on them.
Along the way, the blank-check model was reinvented as a SPAC, with crucial safeguards for investors. For instance, if an investor didn't approve of the company a SPAC sponsor chose to merge with, the investor could get his or her money back, plus interest.
But SPACs remained unpopular. Until now.
Loading...
IPOs, mergers and acquisitions, and deal-making in general are all up sharply right now — no wonder, as the stock market is currently booming.
But SPACs, specifically, are surging like nothing else. SPAC launches have quadrupled since last year, and an astonishing number of SPAC combinations (the transactions that actually take a company public) have been announced.
"I've probably done, you know, one or two SPAC combinations a year for the last five years — until this year," says Sarah Morgan, a lawyer with the large energy-focused law firm Vinson & Elkins. "This year the market just exploded. [SPACs] are over 50% of my practice this year."
SPACs are sparking new attention in part because their built-in advantages — speed, control and less uncertainty for founders who want to go public — are particularly appealing in a year marked by volatility.
Austin Russell is the CEO of Luminar, a company that makes lidar — technology that detects surrounding objects, sort of like radar but using lasers — for self-driving vehicles.
He founded the company as a teenager, and now Luminar has contracts with companies like Volvo.
It was time to go public. Russell said that "mechanically and financially," a SPAC just made sense — and you can't argue with the speed.
"You got through the process end to end in, you know, like four months, as opposed to having to spend huge time and distraction for the better part of a year or two," he says.
But Russell didn't agree to a SPAC until he'd seen several other "very legitimate" companies go public through the process.
That's another key element in the meteoric rise of SPACs: After high-profile, well-regarded companies and investors started getting involved in SPACs, other people were more willing to give it a shot.
As Russell put it, a SPAC is now "pretty cool."
Russell completed his company's SPAC merger this month — a transaction that made him Forbes' youngest self-made billionaire.
SPACS can also mean big bucks for the sponsors who organize them, who are rewarded with a big chunk of equity when they close a deal. In fact, sponsors can make so much money if they complete a SPAC that some critics worry there's an incentive to merge with a mediocre company just to get their payday.
And that raises a big question: whether this SPAC craze will be good for investors. The stock market is booming now, and SPACs are a boom within a boom, but will that actually lead to returns?
Some of this year's SPACs have performed badly on the stock market, and others have raised bigger concerns.
After zero-emission truck-maker Nikola went public through a SPAC, it was accused of fraud, which the company denies.
Today's SPACs are much safer investments than the fraudulent blank-check companies of the '80s, says Rodrigues, but the same streamlined, speedy process that appeals to founders could increase the perils for investors.
"The flip side of making things easier for companies is inevitably that the risk of fraud to investors goes up," she says. "I don't know any way to square that circle."