Supreme Court rules proposed Environmental Protection Agency

Supreme Court rules proposed Environmental Protection Agency

regulations unconstitutional

The US Supreme Court Thursday decided that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have the power under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to uphold proposed power plant emission limitations in West Virginia v. EPA. The greater part relied on the Major Questions Doctrine, a doctrine that has never been utilized in a Supreme Court assessment. It considers any reverence to agencies’ interpretations of relevant legislation to be dismissed while an approaching political concern is implicated in an agency rule. The court interprets this to intend that given both partition of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to clear legislative authorization for the authority it claims. In West Virginia v. EPA, the court is in a remarkable position as it is looking at a rule that has yet to be executed.

Chief Justice John Roberts concludes that the EPA is for the most part limited to determining the greatest safe measure of covered pollutants in the air. Section 111(d), EPA has utilized it only a handful of times since the establishment of the statute in 1970. The Chief Justice likewise found that the EPA has not met the injuries of the Major Question Doctrine and has not shown that Congress specifically planned for section 111(d) to be utilized in this way.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer dissented, saying, that the majority claims it is simply following precedent, however that is not so. The Court has never at any point utilized the term ‘major questions doctrine’ before.The dissent goes on to say that “Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to direct stationary sources of any substance that ’causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution and that ‘may sensibly be expected to jeopardize public health or welfare.