In Another Epic Decision, Supreme Court Limits EPA Power to Mandate Carbon Emissions

[WisconsinLiberty]

In Another Epic Decision, Supreme Court Limits EPA Power to Mandate Carbon Emissions


The New American
June 30, 2022


In a 6-3 decision today, the Supreme Court issued another landmark ruling and decided that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have absolute authority to set rules on carbon emissions from existing power plants.

At issue in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency was whether an unelected bureaucracy, the EPA, has the power to issue business-killing de-carbonizing regulations at its whim. The Court ruled today that the EPA overstepped its granted authority when it issued its “Clean Power Plan.”

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that in “certain extraordinary cases, both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent make us ‘reluctant to read into ambiguous statutory text’ the delegation claimed to be lurking there. Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324. To convince us otherwise, something more than a merely plausible textual basis for the agency action is necessary. The agency instead must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power it claims.”

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan mourned the loss of the EPA’s authority: “Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.’ … It deprives EPA of the power needed—and the power granted—to curb the emission of greenhouse gases.”

The states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming joined West Virginia in insisting that the EPA had overstepped its authority “by mandating standards impossible for coal and natural gas power plants to meet without limiting operations, shutting down, or subsidizing investment in alternate electricity generation that EPA preferred.”

The Biden administration has been expected, through the EPA, to issue sweeping “climate friendly” power plant rules as early as this summer that would seek to make the entire U.S. power grid run on so-called “clean energy” by 2035.

Should an alphabet agency like the EPA have the power to throw millions out of work to complete its vision of a “clean” power grid? The Supreme Court didn’t think so — and previous opinions made by this court should have been an omen that the Court negatively viewed Congress delegating authority to the federal bureaucracy.

When overturning the eviction moratorium issued in August of 2021 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Court stated, “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.”

The decision obviously deals a large blow to the Biden administration’s climate change agenda, as it will not allow the EPA to simply create and enforce emissions regulations at its whim. But the decision could also have a wide-ranging effect on the ability of other alphabet agencies in the federal bureaucracy to create and enforce regulations that essentially have the power of law.

Climate realists lauded the decision: “The Supreme Court today brought to an end 24 years of scheming by the EPA to invent its own authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants. In our system of government, Congress makes the laws and the Executive branch implements it. But starting in the Clinton administration and culminating in the Obama administration, the EPA tried to circumvent Congress and become a lawmaking body itself,” wrote climate contrarian Steve Milloy.

“Today, SCOTUS re-established that government agencies are not lawmakers,” he added.

Climate hysterics, on the other hand, were inconsolable in grief.

“There may be no decision in recent memory that will do more to cripple the federal government’s ability to protect the health and safety of every American than the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia vs EPA, which represents judicial malpractice,” wrote New York Congressman Ritchie Torres. “The impact of this decision will extend far beyond the EPA, radically reducing the whole of modern government to a shell of its former self.”

Fingers crossed.

In a Supreme Court term that has already overturned the terrible Roe v. Wade decision, it’s incredible to think that the same Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA might have even more impact on the country as a whole. While overturning Roe will, hopefully, save a lot of babies, the opinion in West Virginia v. EPA could potentially be the starting point for taking back our government from the federal bureaucracy.


SOURCE:
https://thenewamerican.com/in-anothe...bon-emissions/

[Brian4Liberty]

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan mourned the loss of the EPA’s authority: “Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.’ … It deprives EPA of the power needed—and the power granted—to curb the emission of greenhouse gases.”

Did she really say that? Wow. That is absolutely not what a judge should ever base a ruling on. That is not interpretation of the law, that is pushing the agenda of the climate cult by any means necessary. It should be grounds for Kagan's impeachment.

The standard Marxist playbook. The ends justify the means, by any means necessary.

[WisconsinLiberty]

Did she really say that? Wow. That is absolutely not what a judge should ever base a ruling on. That is not interpretation of the law, that is pushing the agenda of the climate cult by any means necessary. It should be grounds for Kagan's impeachment.

The standard Marxist playbook. The ends justify the means, by any means necessary.

Yes. She really said it.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent, which was joined by the court’s two other liberals. “Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ’the most pressing environmental challenge of our time, ” Kagan wrote in the dissent.

SOURCE:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/30/-sup...er-plants.html

Writing in dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the court had chosen to hobble Biden's climate agenda before the administration has even issued its rule

"The limits the majority now puts on EPA's authority fly in the face of the statute Congress wrote," Kagan added. In doing so, the court "deprives EPA of the power needed - and the power granted - to curb the emission of greenhouse gases."

SOURCE:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/govern...ns-2022-06-30/

[WisconsinLiberty]

Makes me wonder what's going to happen with this:


Biden Takes Aim at America’s Largest Oil Field, Threatens to Stop Production, Sending Gas Prices Soaring


The Gateway Pundit
June 30, 2022


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to cite the United States’ largest oil field for violating ozone pollution standards, a move that will threaten the end of oil and gas production in the region.

According to the Texas Governor’s Office, the proposed regulations will directly affect the Permian Basin, the largest oil field in the United States, accounting for 95,000,000 gallons of gasoline per day or 40% of the oil produced domestically.

This would be just one more move from Biden’s administration to impact the lives of every American by reducing the fuel supply and causing gas prices to soar well beyond Biden’s record of $5 per gallon.

“Even as Americans are struggling with $5 gas and record-breaking inflation, team Biden continues to double down on their political commitments to ‘end all fossil fuels,'” former EPA Chief of Staff Mandy Gunasekara told reporters Wednesday.

According to a report by Bloomberg, regulators would have three years to propose solutions to the violations. However, ongoing regulatory uncertainty common to Biden’s ever-increasing climate change initiatives is likely to disincentivize new permits and drilling in the oil field.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott reacted strongly to the proposal and called the EPA to drop the proposal.

According to a letter he sent to the administration Monday, Abbott pointed out the direct impact on the lives of Americans. Abbott pledged that if he did not hear back from the administration by June 29, he would take action to “protect the production of oil—and the gasoline that comes from it.”

Abbott called out the hypocrisy of the Biden White House, which has claimed empathy for Americans struggling to afford gas. He said that the EPA’s move would only make things worse for the nation.

The letter states, “You say that you want ‘to bring refineries back online to get more gas to the pump at lower prices…’ That goal… could be thwarted if the EPA is allowed to move forward with its discretionary regulatory process.”

He also states, “If you let the EPA move forward with the untimely and unnecessary measures that accompany redesignation, that action will put 25 percent of American oil supply at risk. That, in turn, could substantially increase the cost of gasoline.”

As of Thursday, there has been no direct response from the White House or the EPA.

[acptulsa]

Releasing oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve with one hand, trying to turn the entire Permian Basin into a new strategic oil reserve with the other. Because we're going to need that when we start WWIII.

[Anti Globalist]

This decision would have been even better if SCOTUS ruled that the EPA is unconstitutional and should be abolished.

[WisconsinLiberty]

This decision would have been even better if SCOTUS ruled that the EPA is unconstitutional and should be abolished.

Agreed. I'll take what I can get though.

[oyarde]

the EPA has no authority to set law , none . Everything should have been challenged in court.

[trey4sports]

I thought I remember seeing that Gorsuch doesn't support the delegation doctrine... essentially meaning that all of the alphabet soup agencies are unconstitutional and that Congress must authorize any and all lawmaking. Would be great to get everyone on the court to take this perspective.

[Cleaner44]

More winning! Barry Goldwater wrote Conscience of a Conservative about this type of crap back in 1960. Only after Trump got elected in 2016 is something finally done about it. For decades the GOP failed, probably on purpose. It isn't the R3VOLUTION we envisioned in 2007 but it is still positive movement in the right direction!

[Occam's Banana]

The decision obviously deals a large blow to the Biden administration’s climate change agenda, as it will not allow the EPA to simply create and enforce emissions regulations at its whim. But the decision could also have a wide-ranging effect on the ability of other alphabet agencies in the federal bureaucracy to create and enforce regulations that essentially have the power of law.

But ... but ... muh duhmockruhsee ...

New York Congressman Ritchie Torres [wrote], “The impact of this decision will extend far beyond the EPA, radically reducing the whole of modern government to a shell of its former self.”

LMAO. I wish! Too bad this is just empty, copium-induced hyperbole.

[WisconsinLiberty]

I thought I remember seeing that Gorsuch doesn't support the delegation doctrine... essentially meaning that all of the alphabet soup agencies are unconstitutional and that Congress must authorize any and all lawmaking. Would be great to get everyone on the court to take this perspective.

Congress created the "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)" (later reorganized and called the EPA) and signed into law by Nixon on January 1, 1970.

Congress would need to abolish the EPA.


EPA: Time to Abolish, Not Merely Restrict (2015)

The Case for Ending the EPA (2011)

Bill to Eliminate Environmental Protection Agency Introduced in Congress (2017)

[acptulsa]