By a vote of 6 to 3, the Supreme Court decided to limit the federal government’s powers to control emissions from power plants.
According to the ruling, it is forbidden for federal agencies to make “major” decisions without express consent from Congress.
It appears to permit laws that are strictly aimed at limiting smokestack pollution, but it prohibits more expansive restrictions that set state-by-state emission reduction objectives or a cap-and-trade system that would hasten the transition to clean energy.
Chief Justice John Roberts stated in his judgment for the court that capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will compel a national transition away from the use of coal to generate power “may be a sensible “response to the crisis of the day.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have the jurisdiction to do this, he added, citing the Clean Air Act.
“Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body, rests with respect to a judgment of such scale and consequence,” he wrote.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer, who are liberals on the court, dissented.
According to Kagan, “Today the court deprives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the authority Congress granted it to address the most urgent environmental crisis of our time.”
The decision bans the Biden administration from enforcing the same broad emissions regulations that the EPA attempted to put in place during the Obama administration.
Obama’s Clean Power Plan was suspended by the Supreme Court in 2016, therefore it never went into action.
In West Virginia v. EPA, the appeals court’s decision to overturn the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, a Trump-era regulation that essentially killed the Clean Power Plan, the court sided with coal power facilities and GOP-led states.
Despite the fact that the Clean Power Plan was never implemented, the utility industry succeeded in reducing carbon pollution by 32 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030.
The Biden administration had requested the Supreme Court to postpone interfering in favor of writing a new regulation.
The Supreme Court decided against deciding on an existing rule and instead established a precedent for Biden’s future rule, which was anticipated to be in line with his objective of having the entire U.S. power grid run on sustainable energy by 2035.
The EPA can still control greenhouse gases at the source under Section 111 and more generally through other Clean Air Act provisions, but it’s a terrible and unneeded decision.
Following this decision, the EPA must make the most of its remaining power, according to a statement from Jason Rylander of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which gives the agency the authority to establish “standards of performance” for air pollutants, provided the foundation for the debate about the EPA’s level of authority.
After the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling in 2007, when the court decided that greenhouse gases could be controlled as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the court made its most significant climate case decision on Thursday.
President Obama at the time wanted to fight climate change by regulating power plants, the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind the transportation sector, in an effort to break the impasse in Congress.
Whether Congress must “speak with particular clarity when it empowers executive agencies to confront fundamental political and economic concerns” was the issue before the judges.
It was known as the “big questions doctrine” by the court.
Some legal experts are concerned that the case might dismantle a significant portion of the regulatory state; as it stands, Biden’s agencies are defending wetlands protections, restrictions on vehicle pollution, and insurance coverage for contraception in court.
“Almost everything about these instances… [is] contrived in an attempt to revert back to a time without governmental scrutiny,” Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont submitted a brief to the court.
Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Senate’s majority, attacked the high court’s decision.
“This MAGA, regressive, extreme Supreme Court is focused on throwing America back decades, if not centuries,” Schumer said.
“First on gun safety, then on abortion, and now on the environment.
“The majority of the MAGA Court, which was chosen by Republicans, has been criticized for “taking the country back to a time when corporate elites and robber barons have total control and ordinary individuals have no say.”
The court of the extreme right has ruled that our children are unworthy of a future on this planet.
The court is fostering further climate change by removing the EPA’s ability to control greenhouse gas emissions. Nydia Vasquez, a Democrat from New York, said on Twitter that “Congress must remedy this atrocity.”
Rep. Katherine Clark, a Democrat from Massachusetts, remarked, “The Supreme Court just sided with fossil fuel companies instead of siding with our future.”
The radical right majority on the Supreme Court just dismantled the Clean Air Act, allowing coal firms to pollute unrestrictedly.
Republicans attempted to undercut the Clean Air Act in Congress but were unsuccessful. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, posted on Twitter: “Today, they have convinced the Supreme Court to carry out their wishes.”
Rep. Carol Miller, a Republican from West Virginia, praised the choice on Twitter.
“West Virginia has won big with this.” D.C. bureaucrats shouldn’t have the authority to control how America’s energy producers conduct business.
Our energy sector and communities must be revitalized via innovation, not over-regulation.