The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to restrict greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, in a decision that could limit the authority of government agencies to address major policy questions without congressional approval. [bold, links added]
The decision was in line with several Supreme Court decisions in recent years that reined in federal agencies by striking down regulations on the grounds that agencies had usurped power from Congress and the judicial branch.
West Virginia led a coalition of Republican-leaning states and coal producers that asked the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify the limits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority, raising broader questions about how far the regulatory authority of federal agencies extends.
The coalition said powerful and wide-reaching policies should come from Congress, not agency-level regulators.
The Obama-era EPA rules were “illustrative of an alarming trend whereby presidents turn to implied authority, typically in long-extant statutes, to achieve what Congress fails to do,” the libertarian Cato Institute said in a legal brief.
The case before the high court was unusual because it involved regulations put forth by the Obama administration that never went into effect and were replaced in 2019 under the Trump administration.
At issue was the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era set of rules devised by the EPA that sought to mandate a national shift away from coal to cleaner sources of power, including natural gas, wind, and solar.
For half a century, the Clean Air Act has directed the EPA to regulate stationary sources of air pollution that endanger “public health or welfare.”
The Obama-era Clean Power Plan extended that regulatory reach beyond the physical premises of a power plant to allow off-site methods to mitigate pollution.
The Supreme Court in 2016 halted the Clean Power Plan from taking effect, but the justices never directly addressed whether the rule was unlawful.
The Trump administration in 2019 overturned the plan, replacing it with industry-friendly rules allowing older power plants to continue operating.
In January 2021, at the end of Mr. Trump’s presidency, a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia struck down his administration’s replacement rule, providing the Biden administration with a clean slate to work from in devising its own carbon-emissions rules.
The EPA powers at issue are central to Mr. Biden’s climate agenda. With fragile majorities in the Senate and House, Democrats have limited ability to advance their platform through new legislation.
Like his recent predecessors, Mr. Biden is poised to govern through agencies such as the EPA, relying on his inherent constitutional authority and the statutory powers provided by existing legislation.
h/t RO
Read more at The WSJ
Remember that Kamala Harris said she wouldn’t be vaccinated with
” the Trump vaccine “. That kind of thinking permeates current Democrat policies. Undo all the good things that President Trump accomplished in his single term. Blind hatred steers Washington these days. The Dem’s will lose their sh!t if the Supreme Court undoes Obama’s legacy. The midterm election and Biden’s failing mind will do the rest.
“Cooperative Federalism” is a dynamic partnership, with the State Utility Commissioners, state utilities, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, state and regional transmission lines has lasted for almost 80 years with very positive impacts.
Because the EPA is not Absolute
One impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling will be on COP 27 in Egypt. More so than any other president that has bought into the climate fraud, Biden will arrive at COP 27 empty handed. His power to control one of the greatest sources of emission in the US has been taken away. He can’t get any action through the current Congress. COP 27 is after the US elections and if they go as expected Biden’s party will lose control of the Senate and perhaps the Congress. Biden will be in a weak position.
The opinion of the three judges that sided with the EPA based their opinion on their belief that there is a great need to take action on climate change. The six judges that sided with the Republican-leaning states based their opinion on the law. That is the only legitimate basis. Ignoring he law and basing opinions on politics is all too typical of liberal judges. The three Supreme Court judges that did so are clearly incompetent to hold a position on the Supreme Court, and any other court of that matter.