Sign in

Jack Lienke

@jacklienke.bsky.social
370 followers 212 following 50 posts

Associate Professor, UConn Law

PostsRepliesMedia
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 03/08/2026
My article has escaped SSRN’s ‘under review‘ purgatory, so I’m promoting it again. Forgive me, but I think that 1) it‘s good & 2) you should read it. Also, it’s short! If you think articles should be shorter, be the change you wish to see in the world and read this. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
010
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 01/08/2026
It Gets Better* *In the sense that a certain amount of worse is already baked in and we don’t exactly how much but we do know that we can definitely bake in even more and so, if we stop baking in more, the future will be better than the alternative future in which we don’t stop baking in more
030
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
I'd be very grateful for your thoughts!
010
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
I look forward to working with VELJ's editors to finalize this. In the meantime, feedback is very welcome!
100
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
Short version: Loper Bright and West Virginia offer new escape hatches from efficiency's constraints. The Trump admin has noticed.
100
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
Third, it details how the second Trump administration is exploiting this tension to justify regulatory rollbacks—most notably, the wholesale dismantling of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act—that would not pass a cost-benefit test.
110
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
Second, it argues that the Court’s subsequent decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and West Virginia v. EPA, though not about CBA, are nevertheless in fundamental tension with the notion of CBA as a lodestar for regulatory decisionmaking.
110
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
The paper does a few things. First, it revisits the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Michigan v. EPA and explains why some scholars expected the case to usher in a cost-benefit state—that is, a government in which most regulatory decisions are guided by cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
120
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
New to SSRN (and forthcoming in the Virginia Environmental Law Journal this fall): The Judicial Sidelining of Cost-Benefit Analysis. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
1174
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 21/02/2026
One of these things is not like the others
130
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 21/02/2026
i'm not using legislative history. please don't put in the newspaper that I'm using legislative history.
2247
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 21/02/2026
Things that make you go hmmm?
230
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 12/02/2026
Everything is depressing except this Floyd Collins clip I made my Property students watch after we discussed Edwards v. Sims. The case is a fight over ownership of a cave. The clip is a gorgeous ode to first possession. youtu.be/0_2WVfmNN4g?...
youtu.be
SNEAK PEEK of FLOYD COLLINS, coming to Broadway this spring!
YouTube video by Lincoln Center Theater
010
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
At the end of the day, there's just no substitute for a government that tackles problems in good faith!
120
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
And, sure, you could pass a statute that was even more prescriptive about methodology than the circular, but that would create other problems. Because each rule presents different analytic challenges, and agencies DO need some flexibility.
110
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
This is fair. I was being glib. Fairer to say this: I don't think codification of, say, the 2023 Circular A-4 would eliminate CBA-related interpretive shenanigans at either agencies or courts . . .
110
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
Well, if it's in the statute in a vaguely worded way, then it's subject to the federal judiciary's interpretive whims. Pick your poison.
100
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
and it was hard to write because those tricks were complicated to explain in <750 non-technical words. So, I guess I sort of appreciate that this time the trick is just "avoided deaths are worth zero dollars now."
040
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
Approximately one hundred political years ago, Ricky Revesz and I wrote this op-ed criticizing the accounting tricks the first Trump admin used to make its Clean Power Plan repeal look net beneficial (www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/o...) . . .
nytimes.com
Opinion | The E.P.A.’s Smoke and Mirrors on Climate (Published 2017)
120
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 12/01/2026
I love that the justification for assigning zero quantitative value to health benefits is that they're uncertain. Because there's obviously no uncertainty on the compliance-cost side of the ledger. No need to worry about "false precision" there. www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/c...
nytimes.com
E.P.A. to Stop Considering Lives Saved When Setting Rules on Air Pollution
4134
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/12/2025
Congrats!
000
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 09/09/2025
Out now in the Yale Law Journal Forum: "Every Court Everywhere All at Once," in which I try to make the phrase "multiversal forum shopping" happen. www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/every-...
yalelawjournal.org
Every Court Everywhere All at Once
Rulemaking agencies have always faced the risk of getting sued. But they have not traditionally faced the risk of getting sued for failing to discuss their risk of getting sued. They do now, thanks to...
180
Reposted by Jack Lienke
Kati Kovacs @ksquare90.bsky.social · 22/05/2025
"In Ohio v. EPA, the Court faulted the agency for not adequately grappling, at the time of rulemaking, with at least some subset of the millions of alternate futures that judicial intervention could create." @jacklienke.bsky.social "explores its troubling implications for future rulemaking."
papers.ssrn.com
Every Court Everywhere All at Once: <i>Ohio v. EPA</i> and the Litigation Multiverse
Agencies issuing rules have always faced the risk of getting sued. But they have not traditionally faced the risk of getting sued for failing to discuss their r
131
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 22/05/2025
Thank you for sharing the piece!
000
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 22/04/2025
And sure, the administrative state is on fire, but, with any luck, we'll eventually put that fire out and return our attention to non-emergent problems. And when we do, this paper will be right here waiting for you.
000
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 22/04/2025
And look, I know that sounds . . . really boring. But if you care about programs like Medicaid and SNAP (and thus about the legal durability of regulatory efforts to increase/decrease their generosity), this paper is for you!
110
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 22/04/2025
The piece explores why agencies struggle to assess the costs and benefits of transfer rules (basically, regs that govern the administration of spending programs), why that struggle matters, and what the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs can do about the problem.
100
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 22/04/2025
Working with the students at MJLR was a delight from start to finish. Grateful to them for taking a chance on a wonky piece from a junior scholar and for their consistent professionalism, kindness, and editorial incisiveness.
110
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 22/04/2025
Very happy to see my article Justifying Redistributive Regulations achieve its final form in the Michigan Journal of Law Reform! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com
Justifying Redistributive Regulations
<p><span>Conventional cost-benefit analysis asks whether a regulation’s total benefits exceed its total costs but not whether those benefits and costs are distr
120
Reposted by Jack Lienke
Natalie Jacewicz @njacewicz.bsky.social · 22/04/2025
Would like to take this Earth Day to issue final warning to all birds with feather-covered beaks. Looks weird; cut it out. You’ve been warned. (Pictured: great eared nightjar; Great Potoo)
021
Reposted by Jack Lienke
Kirti Datla @kirtidatla.bsky.social · 21/03/2025
In re: absolutely nothing going on in the world: The SLA team at Earthjustice is looking for an early-career attorney to join us as an Associate Counsel. DC preferred. 1-5 years of experience including any clerkships. Salary is based on experience; range is $106,400-$125,300 in DC.
earthjustice.org
Associate Counsel, Strategic Legal Advocacy
Earthjustice is looking for an early-career attorney to join the Strategic Legal Advocacy team as an Associate Counsel.
12819
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 20/03/2025
Quite the arc
030
Reposted by Jack Lienke
Leah Litman @leahlitman.bsky.social · 11/03/2025
MANY CONGRATULATIONS to @madisoncondon.bsky.social for winning (one of) the ALI Early Career Scholars Medal!!! www.ali.org/news/article...
ali.org
Early Career Scholars Medal Winners Announced
4525
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 02/03/2025
Thanks, Rachel! It's still a draft, so feedback is very welcome.
010
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 02/03/2025
And here's the tweet that became the essay:
140
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 02/03/2025
Here's the abstract. It's a strange moment in which to describe any administrative-law content as fun, but . . . I think this one is kind of fun? In a disturbing way?
192
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 02/03/2025
I'm thrilled to share that Every Court Everywhere All at Once--my essay on last summer's weirdest admin decision, Ohio v. EPA--is now forthcoming in the Yale Law Journal Forum. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com
Every Court Everywhere All at Once: <i>Ohio v. EPA</i> and the Litigation Multiverse
Agencies issuing rules have always faced the risk of getting sued. But they have not traditionally faced the risk of getting sued for failing to discuss their r
1205
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 04/02/2025
Thinking about this one and getting a stomach ache harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...
harvardlawreview.org
The Endgame of Administrative Law: Governmental Disobedience and the
Scholars of administrative law focus overwhelmingly on lawsuits to review federal government action while assuming that, if plaintiffs win such lawsuits, the government will do what the courts say.
010
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/11/2024
Remember when the political news was mostly boring for a few years? That was nice.
030
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 17/10/2024
I’m old enough to remember law profs and journalists struggling in 2016 to identify any precedent for SCOTUS’s emergency stay of the Clean Power Plan. Eight years later, it’s major news when the Court *doesn’t* cut the D.C. Circuit in line to block an EPA rule. www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/u...
nytimes.com
Supreme Court Allows E.P.A. to Limit Power Plant Emissions
It was a provisional victory for the Biden administration, whose climate initiatives have been stymied. A challenge to the rule at issue is still moving through a lower court.
162
Reposted by Jack Lienke
Robinson Meyer @robinsonmeyer.bsky.social · 15/10/2024
Zillow users will soon see a “climate risk” rating for each home. The ratings are potentially a big deal and could shape buying decisions. But are they accurate? And if not, how should home buyers think about climate risk? I spoke with @madisoncondon.bsky.social and @michaelwara.bsky.social:
heatmap.news
Should You Trust Zillow’s Climate Risk Data?
It’s flawed, but not worthless. Here’s how you should think about it.
79929
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/10/2024
I, for the record, remain on Team "We Needed Neither the Birth of the MQD Nor the Death of Chevron and You Could Have Just Done Chevron Step 2 with Bite for Rules That Seemed Too Wild."
020
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/10/2024
And if you prefer the Barrett "this is just a common sense interpretive canon" view of the MQD, I think it's harder to see what the MQD gets you that simply not deferring doesn't.
220
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/10/2024
But, in practice, I'm not aware of an MQD case where a judge conceded that trad'l tools alone couldn't get them to the result they wanted.
240
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/10/2024
If you're a judge who subscribes to the Gorsuchy constitutional-avoidance view of the MQD, maybe the "clear congressional authorization" language lets you choose an interpretation that seems forced/awkward under trad'l tools in order to steer clear of a nondelegation problem.
140
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/10/2024
I think it depends on whether you believe there's any daylight between the "clear congressional authorization" standard that applies when the MQD is triggered and a "no deference, trad'l tools of statutory interp" review.
140
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 14/10/2024
Hard look review, post-Ohio v. EPA:
000
Jack Lienke @jacklienke.bsky.social · 29/08/2024
I should have posted this back in March, but my daughter was born the same day I accepted the publication offer and I GOT DISTRACTED. I promise it's still young and relevant!
110