The U.S. Supreme Court says that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can't take significant action to combat climate change. In a ruling on June 30, the Court voted 6 to 3 to invalidate any "transformational" regulation introduced by any government agency, unless it is first specifically approved by Congress.
While this case was brought in regards to authority granted to the EPA by the Clean Air Act, it applies to what Chief Justice Roberts called the "major question doctrine". The question is whether or not agencies can introduce "transformational" rules or regulations to address issues like climate change.
"Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible 'solution to the crisis of the day,'" Roberts wrote in his opinion. "A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body."
According to the Court, agencies have to have explicit Congressional authorization to enact any transformational change, and Congress must have provided that authorization for the purpose of combating the specific issue being targeted by the agency. Roberts wrote that the Court is "reluctant" to approve agency authority without that sort of explicit and specific Congressional authorization.
"To convince us otherwise," Roberts wrote, "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."
Some less sweeping regulations may remain in place, been any regulations covering a significant portion of the economy could be challenged.
This sort of limit on the power of government agencies hasn't been enforced by the Court in more than 75 years, according to the New York Times. There are regulations already in place that will now come into question as a result of this ruling, including significant regulations meant to combat climate change.
"Today, the court strips the 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 gasses," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent.
The Court's decision to hear this case in the first place has also been criticized by experts.
The regulation being challenged in the case was introduced under the Barack Obama Administration to regulate the emissions produced by power plants. During Barack Obama's presidency, the rule was held up in the courts, and when President Donald Trump took office, he repealed it. Trump then introduced a far narrower version of the regulation, which was also caught in the court. President Joe Biden said that it would not be pursuing either plan.
In other words, the regulation that the Court is using in its opinion wasn't in place at the time and also isn't the plan that the Biden Administration says it will use in the future.
"The fact that the court took the case shows that these are justices in a hurry" Case Western Reserve professor Jonathan Adler told NPR.
Other legal experts have pointed out that the Court published this opinion during a time of historical Congressional gridlock, meaning that it's very unlikely that any new, significant policies will be approved in the years to come.
"By insisting that Congress must specifically authorize significant rules at a time when the justices know that Congress is effectively dysfunctional, the court threatens to upend the national government's ability to safeguard the public health and welfare," Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus told NPR.
Lazarus added that the court introduced this "dire" ruling "at the very moment when the United States, and all nations, are facing our greatest environmental challenge of all: climate change."
Justice Roberts didn't spend much time on the topic of climate change in his opinion, but Justice Kagan spoke at length about the dangers posed by this decision in her dissent.
"Whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change," Kagan wrote. "And let's say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants' carbon dioxide emissions."
"The court appoints itself - instead of Congress or the expert agency - the decision maker on climate policy," Kagan continued. "I cannot think of many things more frightening."