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 Notably, the dispute was about a regulation — the Clean Power Plan (CPP) — that was no longer in effect.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

Polluting smoke billows from smokestacks of a power plant.
Credit: Photo by Hanlin Sun on Unsplash

Local communities push back against hidden pollution from fossil fuel and AI sectors

As the Trump administration slashes environmental oversight, local groups are battling state laws and tech industry deals that hide pollution data and energy demands.

Sharon Kelly reports for DeSmog.

Keep reading...Show less
A neighborhood lies in charred rubble after a fire burned it.
Credit: Leonard Zhukovsky/BigStock Photo ID: 39217630

A broken system keeps stalling U.S. climate action

The U.S. keeps recognizing the climate crisis but can't seem to commit to a plan that survives the next election.

Zack Colman, Benjamin Storrow, and Annie Snider report for Politico.

Keep reading...Show less
EV charging with wind turbines silhouetted in background against an evening sky.
Credit: Es sarawuth/BigStock Photo ID: 478376029

Trump administration blocks California’s plan to ban gas-powered car

In a move sure to inflame environmental tensions, Donald Trump has blocked California’s landmark plan to ban gas-powered car sales by 2035, setting up a legal clash over the state’s authority to fight air pollution.

The Guardian reports.

Keep reading...Show less
Home damaged by a hurricane.

Trump announces plan to begin shutting down FEMA after hurricane season

President Trump announced plans to begin shutting down the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after the 2025 hurricane season, raising concerns about how states will cope with mounting disaster costs.

Gabriela Aoun Angueira reports for The Associated Press.

Keep reading...Show less
Woman in business attire standing on stairs in front of a building with a box of personal items next to her.

Trump administration fires climate.gov team, leaving federal climate science site in limbo

A key federal climate education website may soon cease operations after the Trump administration terminated nearly all of its staff, raising fears the site could be shut down or repurposed.

Eric Holthaus reports for The Guardian.

Keep reading...Show less
Smokestack with smoke emitting from it.
Credit: TF3000/Pixabay

EPA claims power plant emissions aren’t harmful, contradicting climate science

A new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal dismisses the climate dangers of carbon emissions from power plants, drawing sharp criticism from scientists who say the claim defies decades of evidence.

Seth Borenstein reports for The Associated Press.

Keep reading...Show less
Group of people in a city conference room shaking hands.

Trump allies pressure Europe to weaken corporate climate rules

A coordinated U.S. campaign led by MAGA-aligned groups and officials is pressuring the European Union to roll back climate and human rights regulations targeting large corporations.

Sam Bright reports for DeSmog.

Keep reading...Show less
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.