Congress doesn't have direct enforcement ability, so they empower independent agencies in the executive to enforce statutes.
The Environmental Protection Agency can only act under statutes, which are the authority of laws passed by Congress. Congress must approve the statute and they also have the power to authorize or prohibit certain actions, which the EPA has to implement and enforce. Appropriations statutes authorize how much money the agency can spend each year to carry out the approved statutes. The Environmental Protection Agency has the power to issue regulations. A regulation is a standard or rule written by the agency to interpret the statute, apply it in situations and enforce it. Congress allows the EPA to write regulations in order to solve a problem, but the agency must include a rationale of why the regulations need to be implemented.
They do, they just need to make laws that EPA can enforce. Not let EPA to act on its own. Isn't everyone always talking about unelected burecrauts going against the will of the people?
Just because it is called the EPA, doesn't mean it is invested with all power to do whatever it thinks is right regarding the environment. Congress delegated some powers that were environment related.
If it is important for the EPA to act on these matters, then call your Congress critters and have them pass a law granting more power to the EPA.
This ruling is a win for democracy and the rule of law.
Relying on novel interpretations of law like this is fragile, and short sighted. It's worth it to get everyone on board instead of trying to pull a fast one. In a democracy, getting everyone on board means getting laws passed.
The executive branch exist to enforce the laws not to create them doesn't matter how expert their administrators are. They don't exist to create the law.
I would argue that under the constitution the EPA is only there to enforce the rules congress sets up, but not make the rules. Thus Trump (the executive) cannot do this, only congress can.
The above is not an argument that has seen much success though.
The Clean Air Act doesn’t give the EPA blanket authority to “regulate clean air.” Congress can’t permissibly delegate an entire sector over to an administrative agency under the Constitution, and didn’t. The statute gives the EPA specific approaches that it’s allowed to use.
The clean air act isn't an EPA regulation. It was created by an act of congress, and part of that law requires the EPA to file regular reports on whether or not the law is working.
Congress delegated their authority to the EPA. Congress is empowered to retain that authority and they're empowered to overrule any EPA regulation they disagree with. Congress retains all the power.
When it comes to the Supreme Court - that's it. Congress can't do anything about Supreme Court rulings. Your comparison of the EPA to the Supreme Court is misguided.
Structurally, the EPA is an agency of the Executive Branch (aka the White House, POTUS, etc.). Organizationally the EPA answers only to Congress (aka the Legislative Branch) and the Supreme Court (aka the Judiciary Branch).[1]
Because the state EPA sets the rules and the EPA is an executive branch function. State congress can overrule it by passing a law, but policy of an executive branch of government can be decided at whim by the governor.
Congress did vote for EPA to have this power. The Supreme Court decided that they didn't like where that power led, and is now restricting the types of laws that Congress can make.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pr...
reply