Barrett authors first U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a loss for environmentalists

[Disir]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Thursday authored her first ruling since joining the U.S. Supreme Court in October - a decision that handed a defeat to an environmental group that had sought access to government documents.


...Writing for the court, Barrett said the 2013 draft documents were protected from disclosure because “they reflect a preliminary view - not a final decision - about the likely effect of the EPA’s proposed rule on endangered species.”

A federal judge in California ruled in 2017 that 11 documents had to be disclosed. Trump’s administration appealed and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018 ruled partly for the government but still found that nine documents had to be released.

Barrett authors first U.S. Supreme Court ruling, a loss for environmentalists

Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Thursday authored her first ruling since joining the U.S. Supreme Court in October - a decision that handed a defeat to an environmental group that had sought access to government documents.

www.reuters.com

Sounds appropriate.

 

[pknopp]

She ruled for less transparency in government. I'm not sure how anyone can cheer for that.

 

[Gdjjr]

She ruled for less transparency in government.

...Writing for the court, Barrett said the 2013 draft documents were protected from disclosure because “they reflect a preliminary view - not a final decision

I don't see a problem with her ruling- transparent? Less transparent? No. The EPA is a PITA for everyone, gov't inculded, that over reaches it's alleged authority when it wants to- that's where the "transparency" needs to come into play.


Environmentalist try to be something they ain't- intelligent.

 

[pknopp]

She ruled for less transparency in government.

...Writing for the court, Barrett said the 2013 draft documents were protected from disclosure because “they reflect a preliminary view - not a final decision

I don't see a problem with her ruling- transparent? Less transparent? No. The EPA is a PITA for everyone, gov't inculded, that over reaches it's alleged authority when it wants to- that's where the "transparency" needs to come into play.


Environmentalist try to be something they ain't- intelligent.

This does NOT apply just to the EPA. That's the problem with people commenting on a case. They may support something in one particular instance but a ruling like this does not only apply to this one instance.

The court ruled to make government less transparent.