On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. A ruling of such that restricts the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants that markedly contribute to the climate crisis. The Court reasoned that the Clean Air Act, a landmark law since 1970 that granted the EPA the power to control several pollutants that were known to be harmful, does not give the EPA the authority to do so. According to the New York Times, while it is true that the Clean Air Act does not explicitly address carbon dioxide, the law was intended to give the EPA flexibility in addressing environmental hazards not yet known— asking the agency to regulate pollutants that “endanger human health.” In 2009, in response to a Supreme Court order, the agency concluded that carbon dioxide did indeed fit that description.
Never mind that, as CNN reports, the Court ruled that the Clean Air Act does not permit the EPA to limit emissions and force power plants to shift away from fossil fuel use and look toward renewable energy instead. Rather, the Court invoked the “Major Questions” Doctrine— a conviction that prevents federal agencies from implementing major policies without definite permission from Congress. Harvard Law Professor Richard Lazarus expresses that this is a huge deal because the EPA will not be able to get that permission from Congress given that Congress is “essentially dysfunctional.” Justice Elena Kagan, in dissent, echos the same fear, indicating how alarming it is that the Court appointed itself to be the decision-maker on climate policy instead of the expert-agency. The expert-agency which, prior to today, would have been deferred to by the Court.
So, why does this ruling feel like a win for GOP lawmakers? In actuality, the GOP’s celebration has nothing to do with combating climate change at all, which makes sense considering this ruling does anything but. According to NPR, the GOP claims that the EPA’s rules are “job killers.” Between cost, paperwork, and delay, they say that companies feel they can no longer operate in the U.S. Although the EPA has implemented rules that companies are required to follow, Gina McCarthy, White House National Climate Advisor, says that there is no evidence to back up the argument that those rules stifle job growth. Alternatively, McCarthy indicates that they actually create jobs and do not negatively impact the economy.
Regardless, while this ruling essentially helps ensure inaction on climate change continues to become significantly more costly each year, endangers the health of Americans, and works toward an uninhabitable planet, Michael Regan, the EPA’s administrator, insists that they will use every legal remedy possible to move forward despite this setback.
This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group blog. If you are located in Arizona and are seeking legal services, CIMA Law Group specializes in Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.
CIMA Law Group Blog 