By Helen Mancini
The Supreme Court’s EPA vs. West Virginia ruling was expected news for most Americans concerned with US climate policy. The week before, every environmental activism group and media outlet flooded social media feeds with headlines precidicting, correctly, that the conservative court would restrict the EPA from regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants. But, in such a fast moving digital world, headlines quickly shifted before many people could grasp a deeper understanding of the ruling once it passed. Much of the climate movement is made up by young people, who, at the time, may have been too busy with school finals and the start of summer plans to learn more about the case. The legal jargon, too, may have deterred young people from gaining a deeper understanding of the case. This issue of not understanding climate policy beyond its headlines is prominent in the youth activist community which is why our involvement in journalism and research is so important.
Diving into last month’s ruling, the Supreme Court examined Section 111 of the Clean Air Act that authorized the EPA the ability to regulate pollutants from existing sources. The ruling struck down the Clean Power Plan, a piece of policy restricting the carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. After being introduced by the Obama Administration, the plan was never executed and later repealed by Trump, but the Supreme Court case solidified that the EPA does not have the power to make such regulations.
Instead, congress does. Chief Justice Roberts writes: “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day…’ But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme… A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself.”
The report references the Major Questions Doctrine, a body of law concerning the “recurring problem… (0f) agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.” This phrase had never been used in the Court before, and it is only based on some preceding rulings. This logic gives the conservation majority the power to decide when an agency is asserting “consequential” power based on minimal legal precedent!
Of course, many Americans are frustrated with the little progress Congress has been making recently. Justice Gorsuch addresses this, writing “When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.”
This is incredibly unrealistic because congress will never have the capacity to do all of the regulation that it alone has the power to do. After seeing the lengthy debates unfold in the house this year, the idea of relying on congress for vital regulation is disheartening. This will only add to the time it is taking for the US to take action on climate change, and it is getting harder and harder for the new generation to grow older amongst these setbacks.
The problem is that the political division that the United States is facing is a domestic issue. Our far-right supreme court is a result of late-stage capitalism and political events compounding over the last 50 years. Climate change, however, is a global issue that the United States is in large part responsible for. While I do believe that as a species, humans will be able to switch our energy sources to renewables and emit fewer greenhouse gasses, my question is when: When will this country recognize its influence on the rest of the world and use it responsibly? If the government, in its current state, is unable to act on climate change in the near future due to politics, many will be deeply affected in the US, but even more will be affected in the global south. This includes countries still recovering from the legacy of imperialism that the US has benefitted from. This historical precedent is why it is so important for the US to take up the responsibility of mitigating this crisis.
Citations
Barnes, Robert, and Dino Grandoni. “Supreme Court Limits Epa’s Power to Combat Climate Change.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 July 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/supreme-court-epa-climate-change/.
Wallach, Philip A. “Will West Virginia v. EPA Cripple Regulators? Not If Congress Steps up.” Brookings, Brookings, 1 July 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/research/will-west-virginia-v-epa-cripple-regulators-not-if-congress-steps-up/.
Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf.
About Author
