Now Reading
The Supreme Court Case that Could Change the Way We Protect the Environment

The Supreme Court Case that Could Change the Way We Protect the Environment

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case involving an Obama era power-plant rule. It is no longer in place and never was. The Court has agreed that it will hear many. High-profile casesThis term, which covers subjects ranging in scope from abortion to gun rights and vaccine mandates, has received relatively little attention beyond legal circles. Its potential implications are enormous. The Court’s ruling in this case will, at a minimum make it difficult to curb greenhouse-gas emission reductions by the Biden Administration. The Administration could be hindered in its efforts to protect the environment as well as public health by the ruling.

West Virginia v. E.P.A. Jonathan H. Adler is a prominent conservative commentator and law professor at Case Western Reserve University. This case could easily be one of history’s most important environmental law cases. Written on the legal BlogThe Volokh Conspiracy. Or, as Ian Millhiser Put it!Vox West VirginiaThis is one helluva case.

The case has a complicated history. The Clean Power Plan, which was launched by the Obama Administration in 2015, was aimed at reducing CO.2emissions from power stations. The Clean Air Act provided the guidelines for the E.P.A. To determine the best method of emission reduction for a given pollutant. The E.P.A. The E.P.A. ruled that CO2The best system required not only the upgrading of equipment at individual power stations but also changing the way power is generated. To meet regulations, some coal plants would have to be shut down or switched to lower-emitting natural gases. In response to a lawsuit filed by more than two-dozen Republican states, the Supreme Court granted a stay to the implementation of the plan. Just days before Justice Antonin Scalia passed away, the 54 vote had been announced. This was the first time the Court had blocked any regulation before. Review by a federal appeals judge.

Donald Trump has made the E.P.A. obsolete. The Clean Power Plan was scrapped and replaced with the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which it called. ACE. ACEcalled on coal-fired power plant to install new equipment to improve efficiency. This is an approach that has been successful. Some researchers concludedIt would have actually increased greenhouse gas emissions by causing greater coal burning. The Trump Administration demanded that the E.P.A. be issued before issuing the regulation. The Clean Power Plan was not authorized by the E.P.A. Democrat-led States took the Trump Administration to court. On the day prior to Joe Bidens Inauguration the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit struck down ACEThe court ruled that the Clean Air Act was incorrectly interpreted. The court ruled that Clean Air Act. didGive the E.P.A. The E.P.A. has broad latitude to determine the best system.

The Circuit Court had rejected the appeal. ACEThe Clean Power Plan had already met its goals of reducing power sector emissions by 32 percent compared to 2005. This was due to utilities engaging in precisely the type of activities that were required to achieve this goal. fuel-switchingThe plan was intended to encourage. The Biden Administration stated that it would not revive the plan, but instead it would create new rules. These rules could not be written, or even conceptualized, because a group of coal companies and red state, including West Virginia petitioned the Supreme Court for an appeal to the D.C. Circuit case. Circuit case. ACEThe new rules hadn’t been drafted and were in effect. Most Supreme Court watchers expected that petitions would be rejected. (Adler They were called longshots.) But, then, in October, Court announced that it would hear all cases.

The consolidated case revolves around the question of who interprets the E.P.A.s authority in Section 111 (d) of Clean Air Act correctly: the Obama Administrations or Trumpsor if you prefer, red states attorneys generals or blue states. However, the case has attracted amicus submissions from a Death Stars-worth of right-wing think groups and could be the beginning for something bigger. Vickie Patton (general counsel to the Environmental Defense Fund), one of many respondents in this case, stated that the petitioners are asking for the Court’s to do serious damage to all of the ways we protect human health: by regulating food safety, car safety and deadly pollution. She stated, “There’s a huge amount at stake.

See Also

The petitioners and their friends filed briefs in the case last week. (It is striking that several major utility companies, including Con Ed, National Grid, and environmental groups such as E.D.F. and blue states such as New York, joined hands with petitioners to oppose them. Many of the briefs go far beyond the question about Section 111 (d) and seem to be aimed towards what the former Trump adviser Steve Bannon referred to as the deconstruction or the administrative state. (One of the briefsJohn Eastman, who was the lawyer who wrote memos for Trump legal team urging Vice-President Mike Pence not to overturn 2020 election results, co-authored this memo. Many of these cases invoke what’s now known as the major question doctrine, which is popular among conservative jurists like Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and others. It is hard to imagine a better example of the necessity for the major question doctrine than this case filed by Americas Power, which was formerly known as the AmericanCoalition forCleanCoal Electricity.

The major-questions doctrine states that an agency cannot issue a regulation with significant economic or political ramifications unless Congress has given it explicit instructions to do so. Major questions is a challenge of the prevailing approach, also known by the Chevron doctrine. This doctrine is named after Chevron United States, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council which was decided in 1984 by the Supreme Court. Chevron states, “If a statute is silent, or ambiguous, the courts should defer the executive agency’s interpretation, as long the interpretation is reasonable.”

The Chevron doctrine is crucial to government regulation as it exists today. Federal regulations are often written in response to broad directives issued by Congress to, for example, protect worker safety or air quality. The Biden Administrations require that all employees of companies with over 100 employees be vaccinated. COVIDThe Occupational Safety and Hyg Act of 1970 is the only source that can be used to determine whether or not you are being tested weekly. The act was never mentioned. COVID. Last week, Justices Kavanaugh & Gorsuch raised the major questions doctrine when they heard arguments in two cases challenging Biden Administration’s authority to issue vaccine orders. Critics of major Questions point out that if the Court favored this doctrine and abrogated or curtailed Chevrona’s move that, following last week’s arguments, it seems increasingly likelyit would, effectively, strip power from the executive branch. It is time to hand it over. Hannah Mullen, a staff lawyer at GeorgetownLaws Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic, says that conservatives will control the Court in a moment when they won’t need to win any presidential or congressional elections to have a permanent veto over federal policies. Recent writingOn the legal Web site Balls & Strikes.

View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.