In a majority of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, the judges ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency was not specifically authorized by Congress to reduce carbon emissions when it was established in 1970. The decision leaves the Biden government dependent on legislation. wants to implement sweeping regulations to limit emissions. The opinion of the majority-conservative court said that “a decision of this magnitude and consistency belongs to Congress itself or to a service that acts in accordance with a clear delegation from this representative body.” The judges added that they doubted that Congress intended to ask “how much carbon-based production should there be in any administration in the coming decades”. A dissenting opinion issued by Judge Elena Kagan and added by the other two liberal judges on the court said the EPA had the power to regulate “stationary sources” of pollutants harmful to the public, adding that restricting emissions greenhouse gases was “a necessary part of any effective approach to tackling climate change”. “This Court has thwarted the EPA’s efforts from the outset,” Kagan wrote. “The limits now set by the majority in the EPA are falling in front of the statute written by Congress.” At the heart of the issue is a dispute over how generally the EPA should be allowed to interpret sections of the 1970 Clean Air Act, particularly sections that guide the EPA to develop emission restrictions for power stations. Named West Virginia v. EPA, the case was filed by a number of Republican attorney generals and the coal industry. Their argument focuses on a regulation that never came into force: an Obama-era proposal, known as the Clean Energy Plan, that would require power plants to cut emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The Supreme Court ordered this rule to be suspended in 2016. This rule was later repealed by the Trump administration in favor of its Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which was designed to support the coal industry. The Trump administration’s regulation, however, was repealed by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year.

Challenging the overthrow of the Trump rule from the lower court to the Supreme Court, West Virginia argued that the Obama-era Clean Energy Plan was based on an overly broad interpretation of the Clean Air Act and gave the EPA too much power to “transform” the industry. . West Virginia has argued that the lower court’s interpretation of the law gave the EPA “unbridled power” to pass important rules that would reform the U.S. electricity grid and rid the economy of coal. He said the EPA should have very limited power to regulate emissions within the “fencing line” of power plants and could not apply broader industry-wide measures, such as carbon credit or biomass co-incineration. Defending the case, Biden’s EPA said nothing in the Clean Air Act distinguishes between in-fence measures and broader industry-wide regulatory measures. He added that the “real concern” of West Virginia was that the agency might introduce some elements of the Obama Clean Energy Plan into a future rule. However, the EPA said that the Supreme Court was not empowered to issue an advisory opinion on the types of measures that a future rule might contain. Dick Darbin, the whip of the Democrats in the Senate, said the decision was “a dangerous step backwards and threatens our air and our planet,” adding that it sets a worrying precedent for both public health protection and and the regulatory authorities they have for the protection of public health “. The court ruling by the Conservative majority is the latest in a series of dramatic rulings challenging established legal precedents, including the recent overthrow of Roe vs Wade, the 1973 ruling that protected women ‘s constitutional right to seek abortion. Last week, he also overturned a centuries-old New York State law that required a person to show “the proper cause” to keep a secret weapon in public, deeming the law unconstitutional. The court on Monday also ruled in favor of a former high school coach who was fired for praying at football matches, sparking heated debate over the separation of church and state.

Climate Capital

Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore FT coverage here. Are you curious about FT’s environmental sustainability commitments? Learn more about our scientific goals here