The US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the government’s main environmental agency cannot enact sweeping limits on greenhouse gases, severely limiting President Joe Biden’s administration’s power to fight climate change.
By a majority of 6 to 3, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency did not have the authority to set blanket caps on emissions from coal-fired power plants, which produce nearly 20 percent of the electricity used in the United States.
The decision throws back Biden’s hopes of using the EPA to cut emissions to meet global climate goals set in 2015 under the Paris Climate Agreement.
It was a significant victory for the coal mining and coal-fired power industry, which was targeted in the same year by then-President Barack Obama’s administration with strict limits to reduce carbon pollution.
It was also a victory for Conservatives who campaigned against government regulation of the industry, with the majority of the court including three right-wing judges appointed by former President Donald Trump, who had sought to weaken the EPA.
Conservatives hailed the decision, while the Biden administration criticized it for undermining the fight against global warming.
“This is another devastating court decision aimed at pushing our country back,” the White House said in a statement.
– capital letters ‘may make sense, but…’ –
In the case that pitted West Virginia and other coal-mining states against the government, the court said that while the EPA had the power to regulate individual plants, Congress had not given it broad powers to set limits on all power-generating units to set.
The majority of judges said they recognized that capping carbon emissions to move away from coal-fired power could be “a sensible solution” to global warming.
But they said the case involves a “major question” of US government and jurisdiction and that the EPA must be specifically delegated such powers by lawmakers.
“A decision of such magnitude and scope rests with Congress itself or an agency acting under a clear delegation from that representative body,” they said.
The court’s three-member Liberal minority castigated the majority for overruling the powers the EPA actually had.
“Today, the court stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of the powers Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,'” read a dissent written by Judge Elena Kagan.
“The stakes are high here,” Kagan wrote. “Whatever else this court may know, it has no idea how to deal with climate change.”
– over-regulation –
Conservatives and Republicans welcomed the decision.
“The court reversed illegal EPA regulations without clear consent from Congress and affirmed that only those in Congress — unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats — should write our nation’s laws,” Republican Senate Chairman Mitch McConnell wrote. representing Kentucky, a state with a significant coal mining industry.
Republican Rep. Yvette Herrell called it a “great win” for the American people.
“The EPA was created to control toxic pollutants, not CO2. The insane mission crawl of regulating normal atmospheric gases threatened the livelihoods and prosperity of countless Americans,” she said in a tweet.
But Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the decision will cause “more unnecessary deaths” from pollution and “exacerbate the climate crisis.”
Dan Lashof, director of the US arm of the World Resources Institute, said the ruling supports efforts by coal companies and Republican-led states to “cripple the EPA’s ability to fight climate change.”
The ruling “makes it significantly more difficult for the agency to fulfill its core mission of protecting human health and the environment,” he said in a statement.
– Court conservatives show muscles –
Thursday’s decision capped a term for the court in which the new conservative majority flexed its muscles in ways that will have profound implications for American society.
Two similar 6-3 decisions last week shook the country. One extended the right of gun owners to carry their guns anywhere with few restrictions.
The second ended a half-century-old constitutional right to abortion and set off a chain reaction in which more than half of the 50 states moved to ban or severely restrict the practice.
The EPA ruling could also have profound implications.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote separately that the decision was a declaration that no government agency could make policy of far-reaching effect without express authorization from Congress.
“When an agency claims the power to regulate large swathes of American life, it risks encroaching not only on the powers of Congress but also on powers reserved for states,” Gorsuch wrote.
“The court has taken a real step to review not just the EPO but all administrative agencies,” said conservative legal expert Ilya Shapiro.
#Supreme #Court #limits #government #powers #curb #greenhouse #gases
