ANOTHER OF THE SUPREME COURT OPINIONS to be announced on Thursday analyzes the power of the Environmental Protection Agency over the regulation of so-called greenhouse gases. The Court, 6-3, overturned a D.C. Circuit Court decision that had upheld the E.P.A.’s alleged authority to broadly construe the Clean Air Act over carbon emissions.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion — a broad ruling that will have ramifications in future cases involving federal agencies. It looked at two conflicting regulations in West Virginia v. EPA. Neither regulation is even in effect now, but in 2015, the Obama regime adopted the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants under the belief that doing so would combat “climate change.” The CPP set specific and unique requirements for every state to meet by 2030 to cut power plant emissions, but the law was challenged in 2016, and the law was held in abeyance.
Fast-forward to 2019 when 45th President Donald Trump’s administration repealed the CPP, replacing it with the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, thereby giving states discretion to set standards, and providing power plants flexibility in compliance.
Trump believed the CPP exceeded the EPA’s statutory authority pursuant to Section 7411 of the Clean Air Act, which gave the EPA power to decide the “best system of emission reduction” for buildings that emit air pollutants. More specifically, the statute allowed measures relating to physical premises of power plants, but not the industry-wide mandates of the CPP.
In 2021, the D.C. Circuit vacated Trump’s repeal of the CPP and his ACE Rule. It also remanded the case to the E.P.A. This is what the Supreme Court reversed. The Opinion can be read in full here.
Roberts’ opinion is interesting, that the case was heard at all. Really, there was no case or controversy, and therefore, no standing. (An old favorite justification of the Court to decline to decide difficult cases.) Roberts glossed over this here, however, merging justiciability doctrines, stating that cessation by the government of the acts complained of does not relieve the Court’s ability to decide to the case due to mootness “unless it is ‘absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.’” This, he said, was not absolutely clear here. (Surely he’s right. It’s also slightly reminiscent of just-overruled Roe, where pregnancy terminations, while making the controversy moot, fell into the mootness exception, i.e., “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”)
Instead, Roberts ruled on the issue of the “major-questions doctrine,” when if Congress choses to give an administrative agency power to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance,” it must clearly say so. Here, he said, they did not, and in fact, had rejected enacting programs in the past such as what the E.P.A. had promulgated.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayer in an outcome-based argument of the politically-charged matter.
The MSM lamented the decision against ‘saving the planet from ‘climate change.’’ It was a victory, not for Trump or against Biden, however, but for the Constitution, and the notion of checks and balances.
There should be no question that the administrative state, run by unelected Deep-Staters, was not what the forefathers envisaged. Nor is it what most thoughtful Americans want today. (Too bad the Chief Justice didn’t think of that in the Obamacare cases.)
After all, why bother electing lawmakers if they don’t themselves enact laws? Why bother if they delegate both authority and responsibility to bureaucrats? What good are lawmakers, if this is the case? (Never mind, don’t answer that.)
Hopefully, next term will have SCOTUS curtailing Chevron deference.
sua sponte 