It was an iterative process between Congress, the agencies and the courts., On this edition of Your Call, we discuss the 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that curtails the EPAs power to force power plants to reduce carbon pollution. It is a major loss for not only the Biden administrations climate goals, but it also calls into question the future of federal-level climate action and puts even more pressure on Congress to act to reduce emissions. Together, the opinions signal that the Supreme Court is less sympathetic to detention conditions than the lower courts. I cannot think of many things more frightening.
And I think its time to wake up, said Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, a member of the commission and someone who has advised the Biden White House on legal matters. Deception spreads faster than truth on social media. Legislatures can be expected to pass laws barring companies from paying for out-of-state abortions, for example, and reversing well-established rights like gay marriage and even access to some forms of contraception. An op-ed by Jody Freeman: The Supreme Court just made it harder for President Biden, and any future president, to fight climate change using executive power. This could not have come at a worse time because the consequences of climate change are increasingly dire and were running out of time to address it., The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a major blow to climate action by handcuffing the Environmental Protection Agencys ability to regulate planet-warming emissions from the countrys power plants, just as scientists warn the world is running out of time to get the climate crisis under control. Thomas is a staunch conservative, frequently willing to go further to advance the right-wing agenda than many or all of his colleagues on the bench. The dissent solidifies Gorsuchs role as the courts staunchest defender of tribal sovereignty, one willing to call out historical injustices against American Indians. Why it matters: Companies across the board could face a patchwork of rulings by different courts, rather than one agencys decision, former FCC official Blair Levin told the Washington Post. That left the Obama White House to rely on the 1970 Clean Air Act in order to craft regulations that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, currently the second most carbon-polluting sector in the country. The Supreme Court is reining in the power of federal regulators. Charles Fried interviewed by Lawrence ODonnell on The Last Word (MSNBC) 6 July 2022. Capping power plant emissions, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote on behalf of the majority, is a decision that rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The Obama administrations Clean Power Plan, the court ruled, went about it the wrong way, using powers Congress had not authorized for that purpose. NZTA certified. So I thought that was the silver lining in the opinion. To that point,it hasnt been done since 1992. But, you know, one upside of this ruling, says Jody Freeman, the founding director of Harvard Law Schools environmental law and policy program, is that it doesnt rule out all other tools. Instead, the conservative majority applied what it described in several key opinions as a series of historical tests concerning the way the American and English legal traditions approached the issues under review. FERC clearly has authority over permitting pipelines, and Congress chose to grant FERC wide discretion in permitting decisions, Peskoe said in an email. Theyre running out of options right now.. An article by Jody Freeman: The Supreme Court just made it harder for President Biden, and any future president, to fight climate change using executive power. An op-ed by Laurence Tribe: The Supreme Courts extremist justices are aiming their next dagger at the heart of the entire democratic enterprise: voters right to pick leaders of their choice. An op-ed by Richard Lazarus: The Supreme Court just made official what environmentalists have dreaded would come to pass as soon as Donald Trump was elected president: A radically conservative majority, in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, has seriously threatened environmental laws ability to safeguard public health and welfare. Using the doctrine has the potential to open up a flurry of litigation and to put agencies on the defensive for every decision that anybody can say is major, Jody Freeman, Harvard Law School professor and former climate adviser for the Obama administration, tells Axios. There is something of a silver lining here, Freeman said. Notwithstanding their obvious gaps and persistent shortfalls, they have significantly reduced air, water and land pollution across the country while the nations economy has grown exponentially.
If adopted, this position would revive the Republican gerrymander of North Carolinas congressional districts, which a state court struck down on state constitutional grounds. In Moore, Republican state legislators petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, advancing adebunkedright-wing doctrine innocuously labeled the independent state legislature theory. In years past, that might have been the start of a dialogue with Congress, which after all has the last word on what statutes mean, because it can always pass new ones. The commission is embroiled in a debate over new rules it is mulling that would direct the agency to take a harder look at how a planned pipeline or liquefied natural gas terminal contributes to climate change. FERC permits pipelines under the public convenience and necessity standard, which by its nature gives FERC wide discretion to determine whether to permit a project.. An essay by Jeannie Suk Gersen: The lasting depredations of the Trump Presidency were brought into sharp focus by last weeks testimony before the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6th, which left an indelible portrait of Donald Trump as a food-throwing despot willing to encourage an armed mob to march to the Capitol. Thats a very big deal because theyre not going to get it from Congress because Congress is essentially dysfunctional, said Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, an expert on environmental law. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. Richard Lazarus, professor of environmental law, natural resources law, and Supreme Court advocacy atHarvard University. FERC clearly has authority over permitting pipelines, and Congress chose to grant FERC wide discretion in permitting decisions. While Tribe had been in favor of term limits for years, he said his perspective on the issue has changed. The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a major blow to the Environmental Protection Agencys power to regulate carbon emissions that cause climate change. That provision is the elections clause of Article I. Decided 6-3 along pure ideological lines, the opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas astonishingly makes Second Amendment rights even more protected than all the other fundamental rights in the constitutional pantheon. At the same time, the 6-3 result hints that an important 2020 decision on tribal sovereignty written by Gorsuch,McGirt v. Oklahoma, might be one of the only times Gorsuch gets a majority for his views on the issue. Could the court be expanded? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that federal regulators, namely the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exceeded its authority in seeking to limit emissions from power plants.
Who if anyone should stop it? One by one, the tools available to President Biden to fight climate change are being stripped away. But the convoluted reasoning behind the ruling is perhaps more dishonest than even the courts worst critics imagine. Roberts, who favors incremental rather than sweeping changes to the law, sought to weaken Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. The courts reasoning could restrict federal regulation across agencies, making it more difficult to protect consumers, set standards for health and safety, and regulate financial markets, among other things. An op-ed by Noah Feldman: In an extremely important church-and-state decision, the Supreme Court has held that if the state of Maine decides to pay for a childs private education in lieu of a public one, it must allow its tuition money to be used at religious schools. Harvard Law School experts weigh in on the Supreme Courts final decisions. By a vote of 6 to 3, the court said that any time an agency does something big and new in this case addressing climate change the regulation is presumptively invalid, unless Congress has specifically authorized regulating in this sphere. The judicial branch and the legislative branch are seriously hindering Joe Bidens ability to get the job done on climate, said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard, who served on Mr. Bidens E.P.A. And it is the latest instance of the courts emboldened conservative majority flexing its muscle following its decision to strike down Roe v. Wade. But the courts ruling is plainly a deliberate shot across the bow over EPAs most ambitious plan..
It leaves a pathway for EPA to still set meaningful standards.. Instead, the court will consider whether government action violates the establishment clause only by reference to historical practices and understandings.. Fortunately, Congress doesnt have to sit back and wait for the courts next potential blow against democracy. Completing the revolution begun in last weeks decisions expanding gun rights and overturning abortion law,the court said in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District that it was abandoning long-established constitutional doctrine and replacing it with a historical analysis.
An op-ed by Noah Feldman: Something surprising is missing from the conservative opinions the Supreme Court issued at the end of its recent term on abortion, religion and gun rights: originalism. It is a narrow opinion focused on generation shifting that doesnt get into inside or outside the fence line distinctions,Carrie Jenks, executive director of the Harvard Law Schools Environmental & Energy Law Program, said. The decision also limits federal regulation more broadly.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a stinging dissent calling this a clear violation of double jeopardy. In the other, decided 6-3 over a sharp partial dissent from Sotomayor, the justices held that detainees lack the legal authority to challenge the circumstances of their confinement through a class-action suit. Judge Nancy Gertnerdiscussed the latest news surrounding the Supreme Court of the United States, including calls for court expansion and term limits, the fallout from Dobbs v. Jackson, and the potential for a case justices agreed to hear about elections and redistricting. An article by Noah Feldman: In a noteworthy 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to retry and reconvict a member of an Indian tribe who was previously tried and convicted in a special federal administrative court for Native Americans. Under Red and Orange, you must be fully vaccinated on the date of any training and produce a current My Vaccine Pass either digitally or on paper. On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court issued a 63 decision to limit the Environmental Protection Agencys ability to regulate greenhouse gases from the power sector using a specific provision of the Clean Air Act. An article by Adrian Vermeule: On the last day of the Supreme Courts term, in a case called West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court declared that the Clean Air Act does not clearly authorize the EPA to create a Clean Power Plan in other words, to set standards for emissions from existing power plants with a view to encouraging generation shifting of electricity production toward sources that emit less carbon dioxide. It also applies historical analysis so narrowly and bizarrely that it calls into question the very practice. An op-ed by Noah Feldman: In a stunningly broad and transformative decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the New York law that says you can only carry a concealed handgun outside your home if you can show you have proper cause to do so. This doctrine is starting to be more defined. An op-ed by Noah Feldman: Everyone can agree that overturning Roe v. Wade will have major consequences for individual women in the US. And what could this philosophy mean for the future of the United State of America? Thanks for being here. US Supreme Court hobbles the EPAs authority over climate emissions, With time ticking for climate action, Supreme Court limits ways to curb emissions, The effect the Supreme Courts climate decision may have, The Silver Lining in the Supreme Courts Decision to Limit Carbon Emission Regulations, Supreme Court restricts the EPAs authority to mandate carbon emissions reductions, How the Supreme Court ruling will gut the EPAs ability to fight the climate crisis, Supreme Courts EPA ruling upends Bidens environmental agenda, Supreme Court Has Taken Control of Climate Policy, Supreme Court Is Eroding the Wall Between Church and State, Supreme Court Just Made New Yorks Streets Meaner, The Supreme Courts gun ruling is bad, but not for the reasons you might think, The Supreme Court Has Just Eroded First Amendment Law, Tensions simmer as US Supreme Courts blockbuster summer drags on, Without Roe protections, rights are at stake even in abortion-friendly states, Supreme Court Makes Immigration Lockup Harder to Escape, Bracing for the End of Roe v. Wade, the White House Weighs Executive Actions, The Supreme Courts Legitimacy Crisis: From Recusal Issues to Blatant Partisanship, Double Jeopardy: Barrett Defeats Gorsuch on Tribal Law, The Supreme Court Has a Nasty Surprise in Store for Business, The Supreme Court Is Not Supposed to Have This Much Power. Those plants make up a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in the US, according to the EPA. Power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gas pollution andproduce one quarter of US emissions.
An op-ed by Noah Feldman: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court has held that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks authority to order reduced emissions to fight climate change.
It really is not anymore, Gertner said of the Supreme Court. Gertner is a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School and a BPR contributor. The decision by the conservative court majority sets the stage for further limitations on the regulatory power of other agencies as well. Might Elon Musk be forced to buy Twitter? But it would be a mistake to see judicial supremacy as a mere symptom of our politics and not a cause. The Supreme Courts 6-t0-3 decision striking down New Yorks licensing requirements for handguns is not nearly as broad as some are characterizing it. In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act did not authorize EPA to craft a broad rule targeting emissions from power plants like the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.The court majority justified the ruling using the major questions doctrine, a relatively new legal theory that holds that Congress must clearly express when agencies are allowed to decide matters of vast economic and political significance (Greenwire, June 30). And remarkably, it does all this in the name of religious liberty, giving the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment primacy over the establishment clause found in the exact same amendment.
Justices can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. Making electricity creates about a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions the U.S. emits every year. Academics and environmentalists lamented the loss of authority, as well as the precedent that it could set for the EPA and potentially for other US agencies trying to tackle important societal issues in innovative ways. The court agreed to hear a case in which North Carolina legislative leaders argue that state legislatures should be free to regulate congressional elections without any constraints from other state actors. After a Supreme Court decision on Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency will have less authority to limit carbon dioxide from power plants, a major source in this country of the pollution that is dangerously heating the planet. The establishment clause meant the government couldnt make you perform a religious act or spend taxpayer dollars on religion. 2022 The President and Fellows of Harvard College. And that is an exercise of pure power, not legal reasoning. His admiration for the court as an institution has been overtaken by reality. Its the court itself that has plunged ahead without any inhibition on a kind of highly activist, agenda driven, right-wing ideological jihad.. Such standards qualify as major questions, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion, requiring explicit authorization by Congress. On Thursday, the court announced that it will hear Moore vs. Harper, a North Carolina case involving gerrymandered congressional district maps drawn by the states Republican-controlled Legislature. Those maps would probably give Republicans control of 11 of 14 congressional districts in the state. He joins Tavis for a conversation about the Supreme Courts recent gut punches. Two years after President Donald Trump filled its ranks with conservatives, the US Supreme Court has engineered a sharp turn in US constitutional law that could have a profound effect on American life for decades. They are the most fiercely polarizing issues in American life: abortion and guns. The consequences for climate progress are serious, but the case,West Virginia v. EPA,has far-reaching implications beyond climate change. To decide what the Constitution says about our bodily autonomy, our power to avert climate change, and our ability to protect children from guns, the nation turns not to members of Congresselected by usbut to five oracles in robes. Ideal for experienced riders looking to hone specific technical aspects of riding and riding styles. Laurence Tribe, University Professor Emeritus of Constitutional Law at Harvard, told RealClearPolitics that the current court is going rogue and seems almost drunk with the power acquired with its stacking by Trump and his three new Justices.. Yet it threatens to upend the national governments ability to safeguard the public health and welfare at the very moment when the United States, and all nations, are facing our greatest environmental challenge of all., The Supreme Courts conservative wing eradicated the constitutional right to abortion and Chief Justice John Roberts could not stop them.
Under the same constitutional provision invoked by North Carolinas politicians, Congress can indisputably nullify their claim of absolute electoral powerand all others like it. Hes no longer needed for the conservative justices to have their way.. We saw this one coming as we discussed last episode, but lets get up to speed on whats happened. Although there is a legitimate argument, Tribe said, that term limits could be implemented by statute, he believes the constitutional objections are serious enough that the current court would end up ruling that its unconstitutional to do without a constitutional amendment. Gertner expressed similar apprehensions. In the most important climate case in 15 years, the justices voted 6-3 to sharply limit the Environmental Protection Agencys authority to regulate carbon pollution from the nations power plants. To some critics, the rulings represent an obvious, deeply damaging contradiction. Op-Ed: The Supreme Court is poised to cut the heart out of majority rule, The Supreme Court just upended environmental law at the worst possible moment, Like None Other: Profound Impact Of Conservative US Supreme Court, Roe v. Wades fall is a turning point for Chief Justice John Roberts control over the Supreme Court, court watchers say, EPA retains tools to cut power sector GHG emissions despite Supreme Court curbing its authority: attorneys, Supreme Courts EPA ruling goes far beyond climate change, Supreme Court Embraces Originalism In Momentous Term, Supreme Court restricts EPAs ability to go big on climate, The Supreme Courts Conservatives Have Asserted Their Power, Court Decision Leaves Biden With Few Tools to Combat Climate Change, Supreme Court rulings muddy regulatory waters, Gridlock in Congress Has Amplified the Power of the Supreme Court, Conservative Justices limit the EPAs power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, What you need to know about the Supreme Courts EPA case. Ketanji Brown Jackson 96, the 116th Justice of the Supreme Court, Four programs pursue research and address current topics at the intersection of religion and the law. Last month, the Supreme Court handed down closely watched rulings in several cases that included ending the constitutional right to an abortion, expanding the right to carry guns and limiting Environmental Protection Agencys powers to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Initially, Thomass dissent was notable but not shocking. And two momentous decisions by the Supreme Court in two days have done anything but resolve them, firing up debate about whether the courts conservative justices are being faithful and consistent to history and the Constitution or citing them to justify political preferences. Your burning questions, answered. Without clear congressional authorization, the court said, the Environmental Protection Agency was powerless to aggressively address climate change. For gun rights more generally, the opinion is perhaps even more consequential. Its bad news, said Jody Freeman, director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, before adding that there is, relatively speaking, a silver lining here. Whats important is that clearly the EPA still has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, including from power plants, if it uses a different approach. The courts decision saying that agency efforts to curb emissions from power plants is a major question that Congress did not give EPA the authority to handle has led to a debate over other regulations that may or may not fall under the same label. Hes moved from being a necessary vote for the conservative bloc to being basically not necessary, I. Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law School, told Insider. Below is a sample of faculty commentary in major media outlets. If this does not sound like the stuff of great events, it was made so by the courts approach to the case. The Supreme Court stunted EPAs climate powers. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, announced expressly, for the first time, that the court would apply a major questions doctrine. According to the majority, the doctrine holds that in extraordinary cases the court will apply a different approach than the ordinary legal principles governing the interpretation of statutes.
How can the court justify restricting the ability of states to regulate guns while expanding the right of states to regulate abortion? The court has made clear that it will do what it wants to do because it now has the votes., EPAs ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants was sharply curtailed, but not eliminated, by a Supreme Court ruling yesterday that underscores the challenges of achieving significant climate gains in the United States. From one perspective, our acceptance of this supremacy reflects a sense that our political system is simply too broken to address the most urgent questions that we confront. You know, without congressional action to actually fund the kind of transformative promises Biden made, he was always going to have a harder time trying to drastically cut emissions, just using the power of regulation alone. JODY FREEMAN: They did go out of their way, in the opinion, to say were simply were ruling out the Clean Power Plan, but were not tying EPAs hands in any other specific way. Power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gas pollution and produce one quarter of US emissions. Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard Law Schools Environmental & Energy Law Program, shared Duffys concern about the uncertain definition of a major question. The court is saying you cant do big things without Congress speaking, so what is a big thing? Jenks told CNN. Ruling for the state of West Virginia, the conservative justices struck down EPA standards designed to fight climate change by reshaping electricity grids. Both decisions come from the same court whose legitimacy is plummeting, said Laurence Tribe, a leading scholar of Constitutional law and emeritus professor at the Harvard Law School. And shes our special guest this week on The Green Investor. The resulting political divide between states and conflicting laws, analysts said, could create an uncertain legal landscape for those looking to cross state lines for abortion services, as well as those who help them perhaps even the Uber driver who takes a woman to a clinic or the philanthropist who donates to a fund that helps patients afford the travel and expense, analysts warn. In the most important climate case in 15 years, the justices voted 6-3 to sharply limit the Environmental Protection Agencys authority to regulate carbon pollution from the nations power plants. Peskoe noted in an interview that, around 30 years ago, FERC approved market-based rates and mandated open access for natural gas pipelines and electric transmission. But over the last several months, new reporting has suggested that Thomass dissent may not have stemmed strictly from a different interpretation of the relevant law. Climate change now joins abortion, guns, and church and state in the list of high-profile, emotionally charged topics on which the justices have issued landmark conservative opinions this term.
If the Supreme Court ends up weakening or outright overturning Roe v. Wade, the decision could result in a patchwork of laws across the country and trigger legal challenges between states that ban abortion and those that allow them, according to legal analysts who have followed the polarizing debate. Thats a very big deal because [the EPA is] not going to get [authority] from Congress because Congress is essentially dysfunctional, Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, an expert on environmental law,toldNPR. Justice Clarence Thomass majority opinion striking down the law, which permitted state authorities to exercise discretion in issuing a concealed-carry license, is an exercise in sophistry. Thank you for your understanding and compliance.
For New Yorkers and residents of six other states including California and Massachusetts, this means concealed carry is now basically an automatic right. In doing so, the courts hobbled the EPAs power to combat climate change, and relegated the fight to Congress. The framers conception of the two religion clauses of the First Amendment had two parts that fit together. Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor who has consulted with Ms. Remuss team, said in an interview that while he did not want to pour cold water on peoples peaceful reactions to impending disaster, some of the proposals the White House was being lobbied to consider were unwise and implausible extensions of executive power. The US Supreme Court has limited the regulatory tools that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can use to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, dealing a massive blow to US President Joe Bidens climate agenda. The free exercise clause said the government couldnt stop you from performing a religious act, understood as prayer or preaching or teaching or belief. As the wait for pivotal cases continues, tensions have grown, with protesters demonstrating at justices homes, barriers being raised outside the court and authorities bolstering support for the courts police. In a one-paragraph decision issued in January, the Supreme Court ruled that former president Donald Trump was required to turn over documents to the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection. The Environmental Protection Agency still has pathways for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector following the Supreme Courts ruling on Thursday that took away one possible avenue, according to legal experts. The court knows that Congress is effectively dysfunctional, said Harvard University law professor Richard Lazarus. Catch up quick: A Supreme Court ruling issued today questioned and limited the EPAs authority on the nations power industry. One of its two final rulings, West Virginia v. EPA, saw the court rule 6-3 along ideological lines that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It says that judges serve during good behavior, and its generally regarded as equivalent to the idea of abuse of power, in the same way that the president is impeachable for abuse of power, he said. Jody Freeman, a Harvard Law School professor, said the court could have gone further in limiting the EPAs authority. Laurence H. Tribe Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard. He joins Tavis for a conversation about the Supreme Courts recent gut punches.
Key decisions that rescinded abortion rights, permit Americans to tote their guns freely in public, expand religion in schools, remove voting rights protections, and impede the governments ability to set controls on greenhouse gases, have turned long-accepted rules of justice on their heads.