Among the momentous decisions released by the Supreme Court in recent weeks, the one likely to have the largest impact on the largest number of Americans involves the Environmental Protection Agency.
On Thursday, justices rolled back the regulatory state that has become entrenched over the past several decades, limiting the EPA’s power to dictate power-plant emissions under the Clean Air Act. Perhaps more important, they sent a signal to an increasingly impotent Congress that legislators must take a more active role in governance.
The specifics of the case represent a setback for environmental protections and to the nation’s desperate need to fight climate change. In other words, the decision impacts all Americans and influences the kind of world we will leave for future generations.
But those issues are not what the court was asked to address. Instead, justices were weighing in on the scope of the EPA’s regulatory power. As Washington Post columnist George Will explains, the decision “blocks the Environmental Protection Agency from claiming an enormously consequential power that Congress did not clearly grant, and defends the Constitution’s essence: the separation of powers.”
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee sees the issue in more concrete terms.
“This is a health danger that we are now exposed to, and all Americans are exposed to,” he said. “The federal government now is going to be much less effective in restraining pollution, which means more of that burden is going to be on our shoulders. Washington state is not going to allow climate change to swallow our state.”
The problem, of course, is that emissions do not recognize state lines. While Washington can — and should — continue to pursue strong measures to reduce carbon emissions, greenhouse gases from other states still affect our citizens. They still contribute to climate change. They still include pollutants that waft into our air and foul our rivers and poison our soil.
The decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency does not mitigate those facts. Nor does it lessen the need to address them.
The ruling invokes the “major questions” doctrine, holding that an executive agency derives vast powers only when authorized by Congress. That puts the onus on lawmakers who increasingly have taken a back-seat approach to governance, ceding power to the executive branch and its labyrinth of regulatory agencies.
Given the do-little proclivities of the legislative branch and given the acrimony that typically prevents even minor accomplishments, Congress’ ability to aggressively address climate change appears limited — despite the existential threat posed by the issue.
In that regard, the Supreme Court decision is disastrous for the future of the nation and the future of the planet. But that does not mean it is wrong under the law or under the parameters of the U.S. Constitution. The court, despite recently taking an aggressively activist stance, is not tasked with saving the world; it is tasked with interpreting the law.
Instead, slowing climate change and adopting emissions-cutting policies is the role of voters. Congress can give the EPA the ability to pursue and promote climate-friendly policies — if voters put climate-friendly representatives in office.
The power of the Supreme Court has been brought into sharp relief in recent weeks. But ultimate power in the United States remains with voters and the people they elect.
