Not really. The court's conclusion is that Congress didn't anticipate such significant consequences when they granted this authority, so the EPA has to wait for Congress to confirm they're ok with it. They're saying that yes the EPA has this power on paper, but "a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself", so surely they didn't actually mean to do that. Maybe they made a mistake, we have to ask again to be sure.
Maybe they did make a mistake, but if so they can fix it. I think what the court majority is saying here is patronizing and wrong. There's a perfectly normal process for Congress to amend a law if it accidentally gave up too much power.
I'm not fluent in the decision yet, but at first glance:
It seems congress gave them limited power to regulate environmental protection via a law that was written. The EPA seems to have overstepped its legal boundaries in regulating. Instead of saying, "ah fuck it, let the machine run," the court is forcing congress to actually give it the additional power that it's been using, or to stop.
You should read the whole law. It does limit their ability and has checks in balances of which they have over stepped. It is that simple.[0]
The court has stated if they want to extend their authority to the level they are enacting then congress must pass laws to expressly denote that intention.
States have rights in the original law. They are exercising this right and the court has agreed with them.
I think the last sentence in the original article sum's up why people are truly upset. Remember the court didn't say the EPA can't do these things in the future just that Congress would have to give it the authority.
From the original article:
"It's now clear this court will turn a sceptical eye to agency attempts to cite vague or broad laws to enact any sort of major regulatory changes. That's a significant development, given how difficult it has been for Congress to pass substantive new legislation in recent years. The time when presidents could find unilateral "work-arounds" in existing law may be coming to an end."
The right answer here is that Congress explicitly delegated a decision to the EPA administrator, so they should be allowed to make that decision. The court's decision is well-argued, but it seems to come down to "I know Congress said you could do this, but it's a really big deal and they might not have thought it through enough, so you have to go ask for permission again before you do it". It's kind of patronizing to both the EPA and Congress, and I don't think it's a good decision or precedent.
You're looking at it completely backwards. Congress was fine to let the EPA run around and do whatever, because that means people can bitch at the EPA instead of Congress.
> Why is it the court's job to tell congress what they meant to say?
That's... not what they're doing. The court is telling Congress that if you want an agency to have the power to make vast, sweeping changes, then you have to be explicit. They don't get to create an agency and then just give them blanket authority to do anything they want, at any scale.
> 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." But it is not plausible that Congress gave the EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.
It seems pretty clear that Congress does have the authority to delegate, but that the Court ruled that Congress didn't intend to do so. This ruling places the ball firmly in Congress's court, it doesn't rule that Congress cannot act.
Have you read the decision? I haven't read the whole thing, but it consistently talks about what Congress intended to do. Here's a relevant extract, in which the EPA itself acknowledges that to the extent Congress expressed intent, it went against the EPA's rulemaking:
> EPA argued that under the major questions of doctrine, a clear statement was necessary to conclude that Congress intended to delegate authority "of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy." It found none. "Indeed," it concluded, given the text and structure of the statute, "Congress has directly spoken to this precise question and precluded" the use of measures such as generation shifting.
The problem here is that what most people here wish Congress intended to do isn't what Congress actually intended to do, because they couldn't build the political will to do it. I'm sympathetic to that view, but it's not the Supreme Court's job to fix Congress's deadlock.
I don't think this is correct. Congress can definitely delegate its power, they are just saying that Congress didn't delegate the power the EPA is trying to use in this case.
From the final paragraph of the opinion:
"But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the
authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in
Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body."
So it seems that Congress can still give the EPA a more clear delegation that they have this power.
Because the Court has taken an issue that Congress did not [yet] show any urgent inclination to act on, i.e., alleged overreach by the EPA over many Congressional sessions with many different partisan compositions. And they have taken away Congress's discretion to decide its own agenda and priorities by turning this into an emergency that has to be dealt with right now by this Congress. There is real harm to this: it halts an existing regulatory process, and it may take years for Congress to repair the damage.
> a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.
Honestly it's hard to see how that position is unreasonable. If Congress wants the EPA to have this power, let them vote to give it. If Congress does not want the EPA to have this power, then the EPA shouldn't attempt to exercise power they don't have. There's really no other solution if we're going to have a representative government.
> The court hasn't completely prevented the EPA from making these regulations in the future - but says that Congress would have to clearly say it authorises this power.
As someone that supports far harsher emissions regulations than were in effect even before this ruling, is it too much to ask that laws should be clear? As others have pointed out, there's no limit to the danger posed by letting the executive branch creatively interpret legislation.
Supreme Court simply ruled that EPA exceeded its authority given by lawmakers. Congress should give EPA more authority if its intends for the EPA to do more.
The issue we have is government agencies overreaching beyond their remit.
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.
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.
'WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to restrict greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, in a decision that could limit the authority of government agencies to address major policy questions without congressional approval.
Elaborating on earlier decisions, the high court said federal agencies need explicit authorization from Congress to decide issues of major economic and political significance, drawing on a principle known as the “major questions doctrine.”
In his decision for the 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said Congress never gave the EPA the authority to change the methods a power plant uses—regulations known as “generation shifting” requirements.
Chief Justice Roberts said that forcing a nationwide transition away from coal may be a “sensible” idea, but the EPA cannot do so without a clear authority from Congress.
“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” the chief justice wrote, adding that the “EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute.”'
Yes, and the dissent spells that out clearly. An excerpt from the dissent:
> The majority says it is simply “not plausible” that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shift- ing. Ante, at 31. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants. §7411(a)(1). The “best system” full stop—no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here.
They were given broad power by congress explicitly. If congress had wanted them to reign in that power or not choose the best system, then they could pull it back at any time. They did not. The court decided that the previous congress was full of idiots and could not fathom future technologies for emission reduction and therefore is moot.
The first paragraph of that link basically says that the Supreme Court found the EPA exceeded its authority given by lawmakers and that Congress should give EPA more authority if its intends for the EPA to do more.
Maybe they did make a mistake, but if so they can fix it. I think what the court majority is saying here is patronizing and wrong. There's a perfectly normal process for Congress to amend a law if it accidentally gave up too much power.
reply