Over at Bloomberg, Cass Sunstein writes about various conservative cases for civil disobedience. Most of his examples are either clearly good or arguable ones, but I think he’s wrong about this one: “In March, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote a letter to the governors of all 50 states suggesting they not comply with the EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases.” Sunstein goes on to say, “No society can function if people feel free to disobey any laws they personally abhor or think are inconsistent with the Constitution.”

Jonathan Adler wrote about McConnell’s letter a few months ago, defending it from criticism from Christine Todd Whitman.

Whether or not Sen. McConnell’s suggestion is a good idea (and here’s an argument it’s not), there is nothing lawless about his suggestion, and certainly nothing that “undermines our government as a whole” or threatens the rule of law.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA adopts air pollution control regulations and plans, but lacks the authority to force states to comply. Rather, the CAA provides states with a choice. States may adopt State Implementation Plans (SIPs) implementing EPA rules at the state level, and are encouraged to do so. Should states refuse, however, the CAA directs the EPA to adopt Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) and regulate in place of the states. In some cases, the CAA authorizes sanctions against uncooperative states as an added inducement. In all cases, however, the CAA leaves states with a choice. When states refuse to cooperate with the EPA, they are not undermining the law; they are following it. . . .
Sen. McConnell’s op-ed did not suggest that states engage in lawless behavior. Rather, he is encouraging states to make a choice for which the CAA expressly provides, and which the Constitution guarantees, albeit one with which Whitman disagrees.

So whatever may be said about civil disobedience on the right generally, it’s not what McConnell is urging. (Assuming, as I do, that Adler is right about all of this.)