Please review the following 2 article summary and share your opinion and thoughts about the summary.

1. Supreme Court Rules to Limit the Regulatory Power of the Environmental Protection Agency

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/supreme-court-curtails-epas-authority-to-fight-climate-change/Links to an external site.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate power plant green house gas emissions (Howe, 2022). The court ruled that the EPA lacks the authority to do so based largely on the "major questions" doctrine. Justice Roberts defines the "major questions" doctrine as "the idea that if Congress wants to give an administrative agency power to make decisions of vast economic and political significance, it must say so clearly" (Howe, 2022, para. 6). Therefore, the court determined that the EPA had overstepped its regulatory boundaries and does not have authority to pass industry wide regulatory changes.

This article highlights the arguments made in our reading by Miller and Barnes (2004) regarding the role of numerous actors in policy making. Miller and Barnes state, "policy making is not vested in a single branch; it is shared among the branches, each play an important role in defining and refining the meaning of statutes" (Miller & Barnes, 2004, p. 4). Miller and Barnes (2004) discuss the concept of "judicial policy making," and how our system is designed to encourage "interbranch" cooperation and participation regarding policy implementations. From a political standpoint, although these concepts negatively impact managerial efficiency, they do help to prevent any one branch or agency from becoming too large and overstepping their authority by ensuring policies reflect a wide range of input. Put simply, "interbranch" cooperation helps to ensure policy decisions are representative of the majority, rather than advancing the interests of one particular branch.

Additionally, this article caught my attention because of its implications for public administrators, namely limiting their discretionary powers to conduct statutory interpretations. Administrative agency powers are not often stated clearly, as Justice Roberts advocates, and rather, statutes are left for agencies to utilize their expertise to interpret. Stipulating that Congress must clearly delegate authority impacts regulatory agency's ability to perform their managerial duties efficiently, effectively, and economically. In addition, from a legal perspective, the courts may utilize the precedent set by this case to limit the discretionary power of other regulatory agencies.

Regarding lessons we might learn regarding how we manage public organizations, I believe its important to understand the various actors involved, so we can do our best to accommodate them. Embracing, rather than resisting, interbranch involvement can make for smoother relations and more representative policy proposals. Additionally, we must utilize the available legal resources in interpreting the constitution and statutes so our policy's are able to stand up to scrutiny.

2. Thoughts about sexual assault on college campuses

This sentence hit me, "The Association of American Universities found that around 20 percent of female undergraduates are victims of sexual assault or sexual misconduct at some point during their college life." This blog post caught my eye because it seems particularly relevant to those of us who are on college campuses to complete this degree. It is an issue for all of us, really, attending a university in-person or online. The author described the issue of sexual assault on campuses a tricky on, that we often don't want to address. Why? Because this area of law combines some mixture of federal law, like Title IX and informal tribunals. Not to mention that this is an unpleasant subject.

The author notes that the cases of assault or abuse of power between students and faculty have been largely dealt with under clear public rules, like other workplaces. Guidelines for student cases, however, have been unclearly regulated, as the Obama administrations' procedures have changed in the Department of Education. Additionally, campuses have their own contracts of sorts that students agree to when attending the university. These contracts make it the universities responsibility to investigate claims of sexual assault on campus, resulting in campus tribunals. Those on these campus tribunals are usually undertrained and not well equipped to handle issues of the law. So how can campuses better handle cases of sexual assaulton campus?

This blog relates to our class, because the author talks about the burden of proof in these cases of campus tribunals, which are not necessarily seeking legal repercussions for the perpetrators of sexual assault. As our justice system has decided, one method is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the most stringent burden of proof, and in many sexual assault cases, it is impossible to prove exactly what happened. Most of these cases do not have strong evidence, beyond each person's memory of the event. Second is preponderance of the evidence, which is anything over 50%. This is a much weaker burden of proof, but it is often used in civil cases. Third is clear and convincing evidence, which is about anything over 75%. It is used in paternity and child custody cases. So which level of burden of proof should college campuses employ when investigating claims of sexual assault?

For public service organization, I would focus specifically on agencies and state universities. As of now, colleges have the choice between the 50% and 75% rule, each supported by the Obama Admin and Department of Education respectively. Agencies like the Department of Education have a vested interest in bolstering and standardizing the procedure used by universities. Having a standardized level of burden of proof could make clear how likely someone is to be found guilty of committing sexual assault on campus, which could lead to more or less people coming forward as victims. The campus tribunals allow victims to avoid the criminal justice system, if they wish, while still receiving recognition and punishing perpetrators. If burden of proof is at the 75% level, this may deter individuals from coming forward. Public administrators should understand the potential risks of each burden of proof level, both in public agencies and universities themselves.