Supreme Court West Virginia V. EPA could end Alphabet Soup Agencies!

[longbow]

10 AM .... we are waiting!

 

[Rookie]

Hopefully their 10am isn't like somebody's 9pm...

 

[rooster]

The courts been on fire this year with groundbreaking rulings so I don’t expect this one to disappoint

 

[bobzilla]

10 AM .... we are waiting!

 

[chipbennett]

There are 2 or 3 (maybe 4?) remaining decisions to hand down yet today. I expect this one to be the last of the bunch - so, maybe closer to noon than to 10AM?

EDIT: this didn't age well. It was the first opinion released today.

 

[chipbennett]

West Virginia wins:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

 

[bobzilla]

West Virginia wins:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

And once again the dissent is all about the feelings.

 

[chipbennett]

And once again the dissent is all about the feelings.

One thing I'm struck by (especially in light of the subsequent decision in Biden v Texas): for all the claims that the "right wing" of SCOTUS votes "en bloc" on any and every decision, it seems obvious to me that it is the "right wing" that acts as the swing vote in these decisions. How often, if ever, do the 3 members of the "left wing" appear on opposite sides of a SCOTUS decision?

 

[rooster]

This is great. The court has determined that withdrawing a rule because its getting challenged in court does not make it a moot point. Lots of gun control attempts happen this way and this is why it took forever to get a NY case to the court.

 

[Leadeye]

They are unlikely to give up easily, big money bought that ruling by the EPA to make a monstrous fortune off the American public. Like any other lucrative environmental scam it will be back.

 

[chipbennett]

This is great. The court has determined that withdrawing a rule because its getting challenged in court does not make it a moot point. Lots of gun control attempts happen this way and this is why it took forever to get a NY case to the court.

FTD:
"There is little question that the petitioner States are
injured, since the rule requires them to more stringently regulate
power plant emissions within their borders. The Government counters
that EPA’s current posture has mooted the prior dispute. The distinc-
tion between mootness and standing matters, however, because the
Government bears the burden to establish that a once-live case has
become moot. The Government’s argument in this case boils down to
its representation that EPA does not intend to enforce the Clean Power
Plan prior to promulgating a new Section 111(d) rule. But “voluntary
cessation does not moot a case” unless it is “absolutely clear that the
allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1,
551 U. S. 701, 719. Here, the Government “nowhere suggests that if
this litigation is resolved in its favor it will not” reimpose emissions
limits predicated on generation shifting."

I think New York State has demonstrated this more than adequately, both in legislation rescinded/reintroduced during Bruen, and in legislation now being considered in direct conflict with the Bruen decision.

 

[bobzilla]

One thing I'm struck by (especially in light of the subsequent decision in Biden v Texas): for all the claims that the "right wing" of SCOTUS votes "en bloc" on any and every decision, it seems obvious to me that it is the "right wing" that acts as the swing vote in these decisions. How often, if ever, do the 3 members of the "left wing" appear on opposite sides of a SCOTUS decision?

In the last 10-15 years I don't remember one case.

 

[chipbennett]

I particularly like this:

The Government attempts to downplay matters, noting that the
Agency must limit the magnitude of generation shift it demands to a
level that will not be “exorbitantly costly” or “threaten the reliability
of the grid.” Brief for Federal Respondents 42. This argument does
not limit the breadth of EPA’s claimed authority so much as reveal it:
On EPA’s view of Section 111(d), Congress implicitly tasked it, and it
alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy
implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy.
There is little reason to think Congress did so. EPA has admitted that
issues of electricity transmission, distribution, and storage are not
within its traditional expertise. And this Court doubts that “Congress
. . . intended to delegate . . . decision of such economic and political
significance,” i.e., how much coal-based generation there should be
over the coming decades, to any administrative agency. Brown & Wil-
liamson, 529 U. S., at 160. Nor can the Court ignore that the regula-
tory writ EPA newly uncovered in Section 111(d) conveniently enabled
it to enact a program, namely, cap-and-trade for carbon, that Congress
had already considered and rejected numerous times. The importance
of the policy issue and ongoing debate over its merits “makes the
oblique form of the claimed delegation all the more suspect.” Gonzales,
546 U. S., at 267–268. Pp. 20–28.

The administrative state cannot enact by fiat (er, "rulemaking") that which the Congress has specifically taken up, and failed to pass, as legislation.

 

[chipbennett]

Gorsuch throwing shade in his concurrence:

In the end, our disagreement really seems to center on a
difference of opinion about whether the statute at issue
here clearly authorizes the agency to adopt the CPP. The
dissent even complains that I have failed to conduct an ex-
haustive analysis of the relevant statutory language. See
post, at 28, n. 8. But in this concurrence, I have sought to
provide some observations about the underlying doctrine on
which today’s decision rests. On the merits of the case be-
fore us, I join the Court’s opinion, which comprehensively
sets forth why Congress did not clearly authorize the EPA
to engage in a “generation shifting approach” to the produc-
tion of energy in this country. Ante, at 28. In reaching its
judgment, the Court hardly professes to “appoin[t] itself”
“the decision-maker on climate policy.” Post, at 33. The
Court acknowledges only that, under our Constitution, the
people’s elected representatives in Congress are the deci-
sionmakers here—and they have not clearly granted the
agency the authority it claims for itself. Ante, at 31.
*
When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be
only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek
to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution
does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regula-
tions as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s repre-
sentatives. In our Republic, “t is the peculiar province of
the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern-
ment of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810).
Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational
constitutional promise, I am pleased to concur.

"phone-and-pen regulations"

 

[rooster]

The real question for the lawyers is how does this effect things like the ATF making s*** up as they go along

 

[chipbennett]

The real question for the lawyers is how does this effect things like the ATF making s*** up as they go along

IANAL, but to my (skimmed) reading, this seems to be a narrowly tailored decision, that has, overall, minimal impact on administrative-state rulemaking.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Once again, a non-leftist Constitutionalist SCOTUS proves what actually happens when the Constitution is followed.

I sincerely hope the recent SCOTUS decisions energizes those who still believe this Nation and its Constitution can be saved. Solid wins in Congress in 2022 by those who will abide their Oath, and in 2024 for Congress and the Executive are desperately needed to solidify the restoration of the primacy of the Constitution going forward.

There is 90 years of a leftist and activist Court which needs to be undone. With any luck, some of the alphabet agencies will simply cease to exist. (Looking at you ATF, DoEd, EPA, etc.)

 

[eldirector]

Is this the win I think it is?

The Exec branch has a long history of making rules for anything it couldn't get via the Legislative branch.

 

[miguel]

Dear EPA,

 

[Leadeye]

Hard to tell what sort of environmental encabulators are sold over dinner at Morton's dc or Black Whiskey. I remember the big lawnmower catalytic convertor scam that fizzled out when the recession hit in 2008. It's probably still out there being promoted over a lobster and beluga sandwich in dc.