US Supreme Court says EPA can’t regulate carbon pollution under Clean Air Act | Hacker News Reader

US Supreme Court says EPA can’t regulate carbon pollution under Clean Air Act

techcrunch.com

49 pointsthesecretceo53 comments

The Conservative Supreme Justices are in a position of absolute power, where they take any decision they gut-feel (mainly using their religious and conservative beliefs of course), and they don't really need to give any justification at all (because there is no accountability whatsoever, as no poll will ever take back their seat), so any whimsical half-assed not even syntactically correct garble will do. They really are in a position similar to leaders of authoritarian regimes (and have as little democratic legitimacy), and they are really as harmful as such tyrants. They should be removed, that is obvious.

Christians In Name Only

People like this use religion to oppress others. Not very Christ like

Well, theocracy for republican states and corporatocracy for democrat states.

Nice how 9 judges and a grid locked congress can affect the whole world.

Is there any hope that congress can get a meaningful bill passed in the next few years or is it going to take another 4 years or even longer wasting precious time we don't have?

> Is there any hope that congress can get a meaningful bill passed in the next few years

Definitely not. And it's largely thanks to one person who also happens to be from West Virginia.

It's not one person. If Manchin wasn't there someone else would be the "one person". They're just happy to let Manchin take the fall since it doesn't hurt him politically.

If it was a single person then the democrats would put enough pressure on him to yield - god knows they have the ability to do so. He is toxic enough to their party that it's preferable to have him replaced by a Republican in the long term.

At least one member of Congress claims the Supreme Court can be overruled.

https://youtu.be/tApnkKi7Suc

Yes, it’s called passing legislation and/or amending the constitution if necessary.

Yes, it can. Congress has the power to pack the courts if it so chooses, which was actually an incredibly important power in US history.

Here is your answer in clear and blunt language:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?521309-5/washington-journal-el...!

The clean air act clearly gives the EPA power to regulate emissions of pollutants that are a threat to welfare. It's not really arguable that that coal power plants fall into that or that greenhouse gases are pollutants that are a threat to welfare. This is a ridiculous decision that flies in the face of the law, and their justification that somehow this is too much and that Congress needed to specify that they had explicit authority over power plants because that is "too significant" is patently ridiculous. Congress gave them a mandate over pollutants, I don't see how that is possibly an overreach. The position that Congress can't put an agency in power of regulating emissions because that's too general is ridiculous.

But C02 is not designated as a pollutant according the CAA.

First of all, the Supreme Court doesn't make such an argument, and the fact that CO2 fits the definition of pollutant was upheld in federal jurisprudence.

The CAA does not contain a specific list of pollutants. It has a definition, and the EPA may regulate any emissions of substances that fit those definitions. So, the EPA can consider a given substance that fits the definition to be under the purview of a program under the CAA on a case by case basis.

Exactly. We've gone beyond anything that remotely resembles the law. They are destroying the SC. Next step is for Biden to ignore their ruling. Then comes a breakdown of the federal government. This is the beginning of the end. I don't know about you, but I feel if the SC can do it, why should I obey the law? Fuck this SC.

The US Congress better get to work.

They've spent way too much time asleep at the wheel, giving the executive branch carte blanche to do whatever their whims are, rather than passing actual law.

Or you know they could delegate their authority to an agency staffed with experts.

I'm all for Congress actually doing its job but we all know they won't and that passing each regulation by hand isn't possible without some sort of parliamentary system where legislative and executive branches are combined

What do you do when an agency exceeds its authority?

Say FDA decides that houses can make people better or sicker. So they start passing housing regulations. This would be a drastic overreach outside of their law. It's experts making decision. They may even be correct. But according to todays ruling congress would need to authorize such a broad power grab.

This is what has been happening for decades, the court is finally telling Congress to get off its rear and do its job.

Couldn't congress "get off its rear and do its job" by forbidding the FDA from regulating housing? Requiring every regulatory action to require an affirmative from congress is absurd.

Besides that, congress controls the budget for these agencies. Simply by funding the EPA and the FDA, it demonstrates a level of support for their actions.

Not every regulatory action requires congressional affirmation.

Congress is allowed to delegate their legislative authority to a third party, but it must do so through an intelligible clause. This clause states a clear objective function to the agency.

The issue is when agencies make laws that are unrelated to, in conflict with, or do not clearly achieve the goals of the intelligible clause because those are laws that the agency is not empowered to create.

Congress giving the EPA a mandate over emissions of pollutants and the EPA setting emissions targets for coal power plants seems to be a clear and objective function through an intelligible clause.

Addendum :

The CAA doesn't contain a list of pollutants. It contains a definition, which CO2 fits. This already went before the Supreme Court in Massachusetts vs. EPA and set the precedent that CO2 must be considered a pollutant under the CAA. This precedent was already challenged by a few states and was upheld, and the Supreme Court didn't overrule it today either, instead going for another line of argument.

According the Clean Air Act, C02 is not a "pollutant". The EPA can't just decide that it is, and start issuing economy changing directives - regardless if they are right.

This should be very easy for congress to fix if they want to.

Yes, you're right. I was initially thinking this came down to an intelligible clause similar to how people argue OSHA is unconstitutional due to competiting intelligible clauses. My failure was thinking new and existing pollutants needed to have the same solution, and the constraints for arriving to the correct solution were in competition.

Upon further review: a reading of the SCOTUS pdf combined with the referenced laws, I do now believe this was a bad conclusion.

Major questions doctrine seems unbased in an measurable way. Instead, the court should have ruled that the EPA currently had the authority to do this as it was clearly granted in law, and if Congress wanted to limit it, then they would need to do so legislatively. Not the current decision which says that Congress probably didn't mean what they wrote into law because they dun deligated a lot of power.

Edit: someone else wrote this, which does make sense if their supposition is. Regardless, I'll need to read more of the laws beyond 111d.

> No it isn’t. The Clean Air Act is all about requiring polluters to use control technology, and requiring new sources to use better and more expensive control technology than existing sources. That’s the program Congress designed. Restructuring the energy industry to address climate is a different solution to a different problem, related only by the commonality of emissions into air. It’s like using drug laws to regulate processed foods because both involve harm caused by ingesting things.

I answered this question above but to answer you directly Congress can use the lawmaking process to overturn any regulation they find egregious. They can also pass laws updating the regulatory powers of an agency. Don't believe the congresspeople claiming "there's nothing they can do" about regulatory agencies. They're lying. Shocking, I know! :)

You have identified the core of the regulatory challenge: Congress shirks responsibility. My question, what path makes Congress more likely to be responsible (and, upstream of that, get voters to hold them responsible)? Do we want regulations to multiply or languish in the absence of congressional action? I think voters are more likely to demand practical, governance oriented representatives if the regulatory agencies aren't bandaging over the problems. Do we want face the pain now or will we just keep kicking the can down the road?

The law can provide the authority to act, the boundaries of action, and define the intent. The agencies, by taking on the role of determining & implementing the details of Congress’ directive, reduce the overt political influence that tends to dilute or pollute (no pun intended) the aims of the legislation. If Congress finds that the agency has stepped outside its mandate, they can correct the legislation to be more specific.

Congress is broken. The system is fundamentally flawed. The Senate by Constitutional design is undemocratic and non-representative. Coupled with the cloture rule it is an untenable system.

Unless our failing voting systems accidentally elect a set of people capable of fixing the system, there’s no hope for Congressional action.

Just to be clear, are you saying every regulation created by the EPA, FDA, FTC, FCC, SEC, et. al. should be a law passed by Congress and the Senate, get refereed, updated law passed by Congress and the Senate, and go forward for presidential approval? I just want to make sure I understand your intent.

As it is, or was as the case may be, this lawmaking process could be used to overrule a regulation that was viewed to be errant. The lawmaking apparatus would only be invoked on an exceptional basis. It seems as though you're advocating for the invocation of the lawmaking apparatus on a regular basis? That's what I'm wanting to confirm whether that's what you're actually saying.

Not the original poster, but yes, in a democracy I would like our elected lawmakers to do their job of making laws. I'm happy to have bills drafted by experts in the regulatory bodies. However, those experts are not accountable in any direct way to those being governed by the laws/regulations that they create. I'm still attached to the whole "consent of the governed" idea. I'm highly opposed to "divine right of the technocrats (to whom we shall all bow for their superior knowledge and genetically encoded abilities)".

The US Code is already 185,000 pages long. If every regulation derived from those laws was included it would easily come to 20x that amount; so about 3.6+ million pages long. If every page of that had to be scrutinised by Congress then the legislative branch would grind to a halt.

Just like the fact that one person alone can't do everything in an organisation, Congress physically can't author, vote and oversee every regulation from every law. There just aren't enough hours in the day.

Congress could just as easily limit the powers of the EPA via vote now. This remedy still exists.

The court overstepped, again, and in an unsurprisingly partisan way. Just what our country needs from its institutions...

Help me understand... The court which is voted on by representatives asked that the representatives enact the laws of land - their primary stated responsibility - instead of relying on unelected, unaccountable, and whim-shifting bureaucracies to determine law on their own as they see fit.

And this is the court overstepping?

The bureaucracies are much more accountable than the courts. Congress can limit them at will, and so can the executive, at any time. And the head bureaucrats are not only appointed by elected representatives, unlike supreme court judges, they can be relieved of their powers at any time for any reason.

The EPA wasn't determining law on their own. Congress decided to entrust them with the authority to regulate emissions of pollutants explicitly, and both Congress and the Executive can at any time limit their action if they feel like the EPA is overstepping. They did not, because both Congress and the Executive feels like the EPA is acting as they should.

The EPA can regulate pollution emissions --what the court said is they can't regulate the thing that produces emissions. Meaning, you can use the thing that causes pollution, if you use technology or any means to limit the emissions at or below those allowed by the regulations.

Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices.

Congress has the power to enact laws. If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act.

Congress can, after the fact, revoke, or add, or change authority, at any time, if there is enough support. There isn't enough support - because many people in this country have elected representatives that don't support that initiative.

It's quite clear that the powers granted by the people (e.g. congress and the presidency, directly elected by the people, unlike the court) to the EPA through law (and the clean air act), enumerate these powers. These very laws can be repealed by further legislative action. This isn't a case of constitutionality and thus the court oversteps its power.

Let the people repeal the laws if they think they're too bureaucratic.

I think this whole debate is missing the elephant in the room a bit, which is the partisan battle and stalemated congress.

In a functioning democracy, would have found some compromise and enacted laws a long time ago - and no questionable procedural hacks would have been necessary.

With agencies allowed to create law, it allowed congress to be exist in this dysfunctional state.

Now, if anyone wants anything done at all, they’ll have to work together.

Despite being irritatingly disproportionately older than the populous they represent, they’ve been allowed to act like children. I see this as a win.

Why would they want to work together? Republicans have reached a particular outcome that is favourable to them with this verdict. Why would they be interested in passing any law that would bring back exactly the environmental protections they wanted to avoid in the first place?

> Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices.

Friend, what do you think senate confirmation is? Do you not think that is a vote?

>If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act.

Well, nitpicks aside, yes. The problem is the EPA, CDC, ATF, DEA, FBI, and others have gone outside their given authority and created new “laws” (not laws) and this is what the court ruled on today.

Some senate has voted for them in the past, then the senate changes, the justices do not (except if they die or resign), and then the situation is that the current senate, or any subsequent future senate ever, will not have voted for them, they are absolutely out of any representativity of the will of the population.

As pedantic as possible.

The SC justices are voted in by Senate representatives.

My point is that the permanence of the vote removes all the benefit of the concept of "election".

They are voted in but then they never change. That's how you elect a tyrant.

Even laws are not voted like that: you can amend or cancel a law, but not a justice.

Justices can be impeached. The court could be packed.

Ultimately even the Supreme Court can be corrected by Congress. But when power is consolidated in both Congress and the Supreme Court, that fix no longer exists in any practical way.

The core problem, as with any problem of rule by a minority or individual, are weaknesses in a system that allow power to be consolidated at the top.

The US system has neither legal nor practical/cultural limits on party control. Temporary one-party rule (limited only by the courts) is often achieved by parties controlling both the Presidency and Congress.

Add courts opportunistically designed to reinforce that one party rule, and temporary control can be carefully orchestrated in the direction of long term one party rule.

If the Constitution dictated party seat limits (to 25% of Congress, for example), then cross-partisanship cooperation, instead of all-or-nothing competition, would become a virtual necessity. Multiple parties would be required to achieve anything, or block anything.

And multiple parties have much less incentive, and more to fear, from allowing subversion of electoral systems.

The wonders of decentralized power.

Unfortunately, peaceful decentralization of an already highly centralized system, is an extremely difficult problem. Party limits are unlikely to be adopted by either party. Even a seemingly losing party will have difficulty attempting to promote such a thing. (And violent reformations, in addition to mass casualties of the innocent, rarely produce anything like the intended results.)

The US has entered a new era of its political history.

Yes absolutely.

It's days like these where you really wish there would be some sort of legislative body that could do something about this sort of thing.

They did by creating departments and delegating to them

I think the issue here is that the USSC says that isn't really what the legislative branch did.

And that, itself, is a very novel view. The EPA isn't exactly a new agency, and the authority delegated to it has been broadly agreed upon for decades.

That's my problem with these rulings...I can understand how they make sense even if the outcome is a negative one from my perspective, but what kind of world are we going to live in if these huge changes keep getting handed down from courts allowing things sometimes, disallowing them other times, depending on the viewpoints of those who sit on the courts.

Honestly, I don't believe that courts should never change their minds. I think a healthy government, in fact, must change with the times. Of course, there's a lot of debate about "how much" and "when" and "how" - which is perfectly reasonable.

That said - in the past the SCOTUS has typically tried not to make massive, sweeping changes, unless truly warranted. And even then, they typically make massive, sweeping changes only in instances that expand rights or eliminate harm. They used to try very hard not to cause undue harm with their rulings.

Think about something like the cases that legalized same-sex marriage: a big, sweeping change, to be sure - but the only "harm" from that change was that some bigots now have to recognize a marriage they would prefer not to (and only in the capacity as a government official, or in that of a public business - they remain quite free to be as hateful as they like otherwise). Even though the change was large, the fallout was quite minimal (despite breathless predictions to the contrary by conservatives clearly arguing in bad-faith).

Sadly the court seems to have abandoned that general principle. This ruling is immensely harmful, not just to the EPA but to the general regulatory state that Congress explicitly created over the years. The fallout from this ruling will be vast, and agencies are going to find themselves increasingly unable to actually regulate anything as they find themselves constantly tied up in court. It's going to cause a lot of very real harm to a lot of people in the country, and we will be feeling its effects for a very long time.

I agree 100% with your post. Clearly the USSC has made monumental mistakes in the past, so you don't want it to be infallible. But, you also don't want it to be subject to the vagaries of the short term, where balance may lie one way or the other based on a certain appointment or a momentary lopsidedness.

Maybe requiring a 6-3 vote to overturn USSC rulings? But then who enforces that? I don't think Congress could pass that law?

So, which government body is currently in charge of carbon pollution generated by power plants. Does this also go back to the states where each state has its own discretion to decide what is excessive or acceptable pollution generated by a power plant.

Didn't you know? Air stays within state boundaries

Sounds a lot like: “Take experts (these agencies) and put them under MBA decision makers (congress) who are accountable to shareholders (in an ideal world, voters, but in the real world, donors).” What could go wrong?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com