scotus
After Supreme Court ruling, judges take the lead on environmental regulation
In a landmark shift, the Supreme Court's recent decision hands over the authority to regulate environmental issues from federal agencies to judges, stirring debates about expertise and regulatory power.
In short:
- The Supreme Court ended the Chevron deference, which allowed experts in federal agencies to make regulatory decisions.
- Senate Democrats introduced a bill to restore agency power, emphasizing worker safety and environmental protections.
- Legal experts warn that judges' lack of scientific expertise could lead to flawed decisions on complex environmental issues.
Key quote:
“Air emissions, federal lands, federal lands offshore, PFAS cases, perchlorate cases, all of those, I think, might be in jeopardy."
— David Vladeck, professor at Georgetown University Law Center
Why this matters:
The Supreme Court's latest ruling has shifted the balance of power from scientists to judges when it comes to environmental regulation. This game-changing decision means that instead of the nation's top scientists calling the shots on policies to protect our air, water, and health, it's now up to the judiciary to make the big calls. Read more: Supreme Court undoing 50 years’ worth of environmental progress.
Keep reading...Show less
SCOTUS rejects water deal in Rio Grande dispute
A recent Supreme Court decision has stalled a settlement in the long-standing water dispute over the Rio Grande, impacting New Mexico, Texas, and the federal government.
In short:
- The Supreme Court rejected a proposed settlement to resolve water disputes between Texas and New Mexico, citing federal interests.
- The case, initiated by Texas in 2013, accuses New Mexico of over-pumping groundwater, violating the 1938 Rio Grande Compact.
- Experts warn this decision might embolden federal involvement in interstate water disputes, prolonging litigation.
Key quote:
“Having acknowledged those interests, and having allowed the United States to intervene to assert them, we cannot now allow Texas and New Mexico to leave the United States up the river without a paddle.”
— Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
Why this matters:
Water rights are critical for agriculture and municipal use in arid regions. This ruling could set a precedent for federal involvement in state water disputes, complicating future negotiations and regional water management.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Trump's allies celebrate significant legal wins in energy and environmental regulation
Former Trump administration officials are feeling good about the potential for a second Trump term, following a series of favorable Supreme Court rulings that could reshape environmental regulations.
In short:
- The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine, potentially limiting agency authority on regulations, has energized Trump allies.
- Conservatives view recent court rulings as paving the way for challenges to Biden administration climate policies.
- Former Trump officials are optimistic about a second Trump term, which they believe could further dismantle regulatory constraints.
Key quote:
“It’s a very big deal and it opens the gate for reconsideration of a lot of environmental decisions and rules..."
— Mandy Gunasekara, former EPA chief of staff during the Trump administration
Why this matters:
These developments could significantly alter the regulatory landscape, reducing agency power and impacting climate change policies, with far-reaching implications for environmental health and regulatory oversight. Read more: Supreme Court undoing 50 years’ worth of environmental progress.
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Conservative judges undermine environmental regulations
Several recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court pose significant challenges to the government's ability to combat climate change and pollution for years to come.
In short:
- Recent Supreme Court rulings restrict the Environmental Protection Agency's power to enforce air and water pollution regulations.
- The court overturned the Chevron doctrine, limiting federal agencies' authority to regulate critical areas, including the environment.
- The court also put a hold on an EPA plan to reduce industrial air pollution that drifts across state lines to downwind states.
- These decisions reflect a concerted campaign by industry and conservative groups to weaken the administrative state and the EPA.
Key quote:
“They had a knife before; they have a chain saw now.”
— Sam Sankar, senior vice president for programs at the environmental lawfirm Earthjustice
Why this matters:
These rulings hinder efforts to address climate change, potentially worsening health outcomes by allowing increased pollution and environmental degradation. The decisions could influence U.S. climate policy for decades, especially if conservative judges continue to dominate the judiciary. Read more: Supreme Court undoing 50 years’ worth of environmental progress.
Keep reading...Show less
Chevron deference may face changes but not complete repeal by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is poised to decide on the future of Chevron deference, a key doctrine for federal agencies, with potential significant changes expected instead of a full repeal.
In short:
- The Supreme Court is reviewing Chevron deference, a 40-year-old legal principle allowing federal agencies to interpret unclear laws.
- Justices may choose to limit the doctrine rather than overturn it, potentially setting new precedents for lower courts.
- Legal experts predict significant impacts on future regulatory cases if the doctrine is weakened.
Key quote:
“We cannot expect—and agencies working on rules now cannot expect—courts to defer to them in the future in the way that they deferred under Chevron.”
— Lisa Heinzerling, Georgetown University law professor
Why this matters:
Changes to Chevron deference could restrict the ability of federal agencies like the EPA to enforce regulations, impacting health and environmental policies nationwide. Read more: Supreme Court undoing 50 years’ worth of environmental progress.
Keep reading...Show less
States navigate wetland protections in wake of Supreme Court decision
Following a Supreme Court ruling that removed federal protections for many wetlands, states are now divided on how to respond, with some enhancing protections and others rolling them back.
In short:
- The ruling has led to a varied response among states, with blue states like Illinois seeking to bolster wetland protections, while red states, including Indiana, are reducing safeguards.
- The absence of federal oversight leaves over half of the nation's wetlands vulnerable, impacting water quality and flood management.
- States without prior regulations or those rolling back existing ones face criticism for undermining environmental protections and public health.
Key quote:
"It creates a checkered landscape in terms of water quality."
— Marla Stelk, executive director of the National Association of Wetland Managers
Why this matters:
A patchwork approach to wetlands protections in the absence of a coherent federal policy tied to the Clean Water Act poses risks to water quality and public health. Read more on the Trump administration's attack on water protections: Derrick Z. Jackson: EPA’s new water rule is a mockery of science and the Clean Water Act.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Supreme Court scrutinizes EPA's anti-pollution strategy across states
The Supreme Court evaluates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's initiative to decrease emissions affecting neighboring states, aiming to mitigate smog-related health issues.
Anna Phillips and Ann E. Marimow report for The Washington Post.
In short:
- The EPA's "good neighbor" rule, aimed at reducing cross-state air pollution, faces challenges from three states and various industry groups.
- This rule extends Obama-era regulations to include additional industrial pollutants, targeting a significant reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions by 2026.
- Legal and political battles highlight the ongoing debate over federal versus state authority and the economic impact of environmental regulations.
Key quote:
The case "represents an even further invasion from the Supreme Court into what have traditionally been considered legislative and executive branch policy judgments."
— Sam Sankar, senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice
Why this matters:
This case may represent a pivotal moment for environmental policy, with implications for how the U.S. manages cross-state pollution and enforces clean air standards nationwide, reflecting a broader struggle over the balance of power between federal agencies and the courts. Does the Supreme Court's conservative majority, in the words of Justice Elena Kagan, have it's "thumb on the scale" of justice?
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
