supreme court climate change

Op-ed: Reflections on the Supreme Court’s Decision in West Virginia v. EPA

Danger resides in the majority’s having invoked a sweeping “Major Questions Doctrine” to justify its decision in this relatively narrow case.

The recent 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA was an exercise of raw political power.

The anti-regulation, conservative majority did it with a highly contrived, legally threadbare argument simply because they could. Notably, the dispute was about a regulation — the Clean Power Plan (CPP) — that was no longer in effect.

It’s also worth noting that market forces had already done more to drive a transition away from coal in U.S. electricity generation than the CPP had been predicted to do, had it stayed in force.

The only apparent reasons for the Supreme Court to take the case were (1) to allow the Court’s most radical majority in modern times to reduce the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to address climate change, and (2) to do so in a way that would open the door to future decisions reining in the power of the so-called “administrative state” to regulate industry under broad guidelines granted by the Congress.

Depriving the agency of an important option 

What the decision explicitly forbids EPA to do is to use “generation-shifting mechanisms”— that is, forcing electricity generators to shift to cleaner options -- to reduce the reliance of U.S. electricity generation on coal-fired power plants.

The ruling does not deprive EPA of the right to regulate coal-fired power plant emissions in other ways, such as with emission standards or technology requirements applied to specified types of plants. (One could assume the Court only left those options open to EPA because it was only the generation shifting options that had been challenged in the case the Court was reviewing.)

The Court’s majority claims it is simply returning to Congress the opportunity to indicate whether or not it intended to delegate to EPA authority to do the specific thing that the disputed regulation did; but the majority is well aware there’s no chance the current Congress would come down in favor.

While the ruling does, then, deprive EPA of one important option for regulating greenhouse-gas emission, the far larger danger resides in the majority’s having invoked a sweeping “Major Questions Doctrine” to justify its decision in this relatively narrow case.

Dangerous doctrine 

That majority declared that this newly labeled doctrine — whose antecedents in previous Court decisions do not fit the current case (see Justice Kagan’s dissent)― holds that rules imposed by EPA or other Executive Branch agencies are subject to judicial review if the rules have major economic or other societal impacts and were not authorized, explicitly and in detail, in the language of Congress’s delegation of authority to the agency in question.

Inasmuch as Congressional delegations of regulatory authority to Executive Branch agencies often do not specify the specific regulatory tools the agencies may use (for the good reason that Congress lacks the relevant expertise and doesn’t wish to constrain those better equipped), the majority’s newly elevated doctrine puts a vast array of environmental and business regulations at risk when this Court finds opportunities to review them.

John Holdren is a research professor in Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and Co-Director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program in the School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

From January 2009 to January 2017, Holdren was President Obama’s Science Advisor and Senate-confirmed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Smiling people with signs marching in support of science.
Credit: Vlad Tchompalov/Unsplash

Judge allows Trump to cut more than $1bn in National Science Foundation grants

Court declined preliminary injunction in case brought by scientists seeking to halt purge of more than 1,600 grants.

A blue and white ship at sea with LNG written on the side of it.
Credit: BNK Naval Photographer/Big Stock Photo

Wright and Burgum urge Europe to rethink methane curbs

A new EU rule will restrict imports that exceed strict limits on methane emissions. That could be a problem for American LNG exports.
Illustration of arm "netting " smokestack emissions
Copyright: Dmitrynew83/ BigStock Photo ID: 419550961

Carbon capture – the get-out-of-jail-free card that does not actually work

Engineers have been trying to perfect the technology for years but the maximum effect it could manage is far short of what the planet needs.

Boy immersed up to nose in floodwaters

In the Pacific, unkept U.S. promises on climate cut deep

Pacific island nations have seen American pledges and attention come and go with geopolitical winds. Recent U.S. pullbacks are met with disappointment but not surprise.
aerial view of Louisiana Delta

Vanishing Bayous: On a boat at ground zero for sea level rise

Folks on Louisiana's bayous, where Big Oil is really big, know firsthand the perils of sea level rise, and a group of North Carolinians recently visited there looking to start a conversation.

3D image illustrating nuclear fusion
Copyright: Yurchanka/ BigStock Photo ID: 454747091

Department of Energy allocates $134 million for fusion funding

Most of the money will go to teams working to close the gap between the private nuclear industry and research labs and universities.
Aerial view of heavy machinery clearing a forest.
Credit: Rich Carey/Big Stock Photo

Study finds Indigenous territories of Amazon rainforest can protect humans from disease

A new study finds well-preserved areas of Amazon rainforest occupied and managed by Indigenous peoples show lower incidences of multiple diseases in the regions around them.
From our Newsroom
Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

One facility has emitted cancer-causing chemicals into waterways at levels up to 520% higher than legal limits.

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

"The reality is, we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.”

Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro speaks with the state flag and American flag behind him.

Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?

A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations

silhouette of people holding hands by a lake at sunset

An open letter from EPA staff to the American public

“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”

wildfire retardants being sprayed by plane

New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants

“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.

Stay informed: sign up for The Daily Climate newsletter
Top news on climate impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered to your inbox week days.