The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: Elderberry on March 01, 2022, 12:26:58 am
-
SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe 2/28/2022
In climate-change case, justices grapple with EPA’s role, congressional intent, and their own jurisdiction
For two hours on Monday, the justices probed the extent of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases in a case with high stakes for the Biden administration’s plans to slow climate change. By the end of the oral argument, there were no clear indications about how the court is likely to rule.
The case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, hinges on a technical provision of the Clean Air Act, but much of the argument focused on two broader themes: whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute at all and, if so, whether the lower court’s decision violates the “major questions” doctrine — the idea that if Congress wants to give an administrative agency the power to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance,” it must say so clearly. A ruling that adopts an expansive interpretation of the major-questions doctrine – as some conservative groups are advocating – could curtail the regulatory scope not just of the EPA but many other federal agencies as well.
The oral argument occurred on the same morning that a panel of scientists convened by the United Nations issued a major new report that warns of dire effects from climate change and concludes that nations are not doing nearly enough to cope with a warming planet.
The dispute began in 2015 with the Obama administration’s adoption of the Clean Power Plan, a rule that sought to combat climate change by reducing carbon pollution from power plants. The plan never went into effect, however: Several states and private plaintiffs challenged it in federal court, and a divided Supreme Court put it on hold in February 2016.
More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/in-climate-change-case-justices-grapple-with-epas-role-congressional-intent-and-their-own-jurisdiction/ (https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/in-climate-change-case-justices-grapple-with-epas-role-congressional-intent-and-their-own-jurisdiction/)
-
Ruling against that rulemaking overreach would be nice.
Especially since the UN's climate report has been debunked pretty thoroughly.
As far as humans' ability to have any major effect on climate, that is debatable with the exception of seeding the upper atmosphere with material which will usher in the next ice age, with no way to fix that.
We're talking a dynamic system that has been operating for 4.6 billion years without our help, and regardless of what we do. Trying to preserve it in stasis is folly, as it is with any dynamic natural system.
It makes as much sense as stopping continental drift so the amount of fuel expended in shipping to and from receding destinations can be saved.
-
Had dealt with EPA from the '70's to '10's.
Way back, the EPA didn't breathe without some form of legislative authorization. The enforcement process was careful and deliberate, as was the means of regulaton nterpretation. This process of devolving into a quasi-green gestapo was a slow process.
I have some horror stories that would curl your mustache around EPA abuses of power I have seen.