Supreme Court rulings endanger environmental protections
![Supreme Court rulings endanger environmental protections](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/chevron_frazin-budryk_AdobeStock.jpg?w=900)
The Supreme Court has put environmental protections under threat — issuing decisions that limit the power of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to combat climate change and pollution.
Two of the court's recent rulings, both of which were decided 6-3 along ideological lines, could have a far-reaching impact on agencies' ability to make and defend rules governing greenhouse gas emissions as well as air and water pollution.
Stan Meiburg, who was the EPA’s acting No. 2 official under the Obama administration, said people should be “very concerned” about the implications of the decisions and how they impact the government’s ability “to respond to real crises that we are facing right now in our environment.”
Last week, the court struck down a legal precedent known as the Chevron deference that instructed judges to defer to federal agencies in cases where the law is ambiguous.
The elimination of that doctrine means that in close-call cases, judges are more likely to substitute their own interpretation of the law instead of a federal agency’s, making it more likely that an agency action will be overturned.
On Monday, the court also gave opponents of federal rules more opportunities to challenge them in court, extending the time a rule’s opponent has to sue over it. In practice, this is expected to enable new companies to challenge rules previously believed to be long settled.
Friday’s ruling overturning the Chevron deference raised significant alarm among environmental advocates.
Although the ruling technically applies equally to administrations of both parties, Sam Sankar, senior vice president of programs for Earthjustice, described it as “deeply deregulatory,” particularly given the conservative makeup of the judiciary.
“This court is saying we get to read the statutes in the first instance, not the agencies. We're the ones who resolve ambiguities. We don't listen to the agencies, except as, you know, third parties in litigation. And this is a profoundly conservative court that reads statutes as narrowly as possible,” Sankar told reporters.
“The federal government and environmental groups are going to be up to our ears in litigation, just trying to preserve the status quo, and the industries and the right-wing groups that support them are going to be throwing everything they've got at this tool to try to make hay with it,” he said.
Sanjay Narayan, a managing attorney with the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program, said the Chevron decision also upends the historical deference to technical and logistical expertise within agencies.
“What that means, I think, is that this decision is likely, even in small, everyday ways, to undermine the effectiveness of a vast array of policies,” he said in a call with reporters.
Meiburg, the former EPA official, believes the Monday ruling allowing for later legal challenges could be even more consequential.
"It does seem to create an endless opportunity for no regulation to be ever settled,” he said.
“They basically said, ‘Well, there's no statute of limitations. [It] doesn't run out until the injury actually occurs’ and all you have to do is to create a new company and say, 'Oh, we've been injured' and then you can reopen almost any rule," he added.
Meiburg said regulations that are particularly vulnerable include longstanding limitations on how much air or water pollution an industry can release, including restrictions on hazardous air pollutants.
Meanwhile Nina Mendelson, a professor at University of Michigan Law School, said that in light of recent rulings, she doesn’t believe that one particular type of environmental regulation is more vulnerable than another, stating that “they're all vulnerable.”
“The message here is agencies can get sued even decades later, and they have to prepare for a gotcha game in the courts, both on their detailed analysis of highly technical questions and on their best efforts to offer an interpretation of the law that makes sense and that is true to Congress's purposes in enacting the law,” Mendelson said.
This is particularly true, she said, in light of a third ruling last week, which halted the Biden administration’s cross-state air pollution rule.
"One of the reasons why the rule was stayed is because the court felt that EPA had not adequately addressed a particular concern raised by challengers ... even though EPA had gone to extensive efforts to address many concerns around the rule, and even though the particular issue ... had not been presented directly to the agency," Mendelson said.
"That tells agencies 'be prepared to have to fight lawsuits about nitpicky issues that you may never have ... heard about before,'" she added.
Date: |
Filter
-
The Guardian - World
The supreme court’s presidential immunity ruling mocks the rule of law | Corey Brettschneider
Citizens must make this presidential election about rescuing our democracy from authoritarianism. The US supreme court found this week that former presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for “official acts”. This ruling doesn’t just ... -
The New York Times - World
Why the Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Worries U.S. Allies
Legal experts say the U.S. Supreme Court ruling pushes past most of the norms in effect among American allies, adding more concern about the reliability of U.S. power. -
CBS News - Top stories
Jan. 6 victims frustrated over Supreme Court ruling on Trump immunity
Many of the victims and the families of those who were attacked in the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the Capitol are sharing their frustration and anger with the Supreme Court.Donald Trump -
CBS News - Top stories
Takeaways from the Supreme Court's historic term
The Supreme Court handles the tough cases, so every term is notable, but this one in particular reshaped vast parts of the American system of government and touched some of the most sensitive cultural issues of our time. New York Times reporter ... -
The Wall Street Journal - World
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Takes Back Control
In the term just ended, Roberts moved the law to match his priorities—and didn’t worry about getting liberal justices on board. -
NBC News - Top stories
Judge’s order greatly expands where Biden can’t enforce a new rule protecting LGBTQ students
Enforcement of a federal rule expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students has been blocked in four states and a patchwork of places elsewhere by a federal judge in Kansas.Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Social media court case shows we must rein in bureaucrats to protect free speech
The lesson of Murthy v. Missouri and the Supreme Court’s decision is censorship is the symptom. The root cause is government overreach. -
The New York Times - Top stories
Legal Conservatives’ Long Game: Amp Up Presidential Power but Kneecap Federal Agencies
Blockbuster decisions by the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed supermajority — expanding one kind of executive branch authority while undercutting another — were no contradiction. -
NBC News - Politics
Conservative legal scholars say the Supreme Court's Trump immunity decision isn't conservative
The Supreme Court's decision to grant former President Donald Trump absolute immunity for some of his conduct in seeking to overturn the 2020 election has attracted a chorus of criticism from those who saw it as another sign of conservative ...Donald Trump -
CBS News - Top stories
Trump's sentencing delayed in New York conviction following Supreme Court immunity decision
Former President Donald Trump's sentencing for his New York criminal conviction has been delayed after the Supreme Court earlier this week ruled presidents have immunity for official acts while in office. CBS News' Robert Costa explains the ...New York
More from The Hill
-
The Hill - Politics
Only 1 state in the US completely bans consumer fireworks
Firework laws are always a bit confusing for Americans ahead of the Fourth of July. Are you allowed to set them off? What kinds of fireworks can you legally purchase? It's a state-by-state mess that nobody seems to understand. -
The Hill - Politics
Will the Fed hit its inflation target by 2025? Don’t bet on it.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen expressed optimism that the Federal Reserve Board's 2 percent inflation target might be achieved by 2025, but other forecast groups show a less optimistic outlook, with inflation expected to remain above 2 percent ...Federal Reserve -
The Hill - Politics
Biden: 'I screwed up' during debate, but 'we're gonna just beat Donald Trump'
President Biden acknowledged his poor debate performance in a radio interview Thursday, saying he “screwed up” on the debate stage, but reiterated that he is not ending his campaign and is committed to defeating former President Trump in November. ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
There is no grand plan to replace Biden
The establishment media spent the entirety of the Trump administration telling us what the president was really like behind the scenes. But during the Biden administration, they haven’t seemed remotely interested in what the president is like ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
DC water confirmed safe to drink after precautionary boil water advisory
Water in Washington, D.C., has been confirmed safe to drink Thursday after the district faced a boil water advisory a day before. “All DC Water customers under the precautionary boil water advisory can use tap water for all purposes after it was ...