terrylturnipseed - Tumblr blog

[terrylturnipseed]

SCOTUS Reins in Federal Regulatory Power

The case West Virginia v. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) illustrates the approach of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to redefining federal regulatory powers. The case involved the Clean Power Plan (CPP), an EPA plan created during the Obama Administration requiring energy suppliers to abide by carbon emissions standards. A May 2023 article in the City University of New York's publication New Labor Forum reported that West Virginia v. EPA exemplifies SCOTUS's pattern in curbing federal regulatory power.

Under CPP mandates, power plants had to deploy emissions reduction technology and shift to alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power. In response, several states challenged the plan, saying the EPA overstepped its boundaries when mandating that power plants make these changes. During both the Obama and Trump administrations, the court stayed the case. However, the case became relevant after the Biden administration stated that it supported requiring power plants to shift to alternative energy sources.

SCOTUS issued a 6-3 ruling in June 2022, striking down the CPP mandate. The “major questions doctrine” was at the center of this ruling. The “major questions doctrine” is a principle in US administrative law that states federal agencies must receive permission from Congress to make significant political and economic decisions. It also indirectly tells Congress to speak clearly when it wants federal agencies to take action. In addition, this principle allows the Supreme Court to decide when an agency has the right to make major decisions.

In either case, SCOTUS decided that Congress did not give the EPA apparent authority to regulate emissions by shifting to alternative energy sources. While the time to comply has passed, the court issued a ruling anyway because the EPA could impose emissions limitations based on moving to alternative energies in the future.

This “major questions doctrine” was intended to return regulatory power to Congress, according to the May 2023 New Labor Forum. However, some believe that the doctrine will do more harm than good by restricting the work of the government simply by not allowing agencies to make important policy, economic, or political changes independently. At the same time, it might also prevent Congress from regulating private businesses effectively.

Another possible impact is that the doctrine might move the country's ideological stance to libertarian ideals, which favor reduced government interference. Whether this is a negative or positive impact depends on the individual's perspective.

Some believe the West Virginia v. EPA decision adversely impacts governance simply because Congress passes laws and gives powers to the president and the president’s administration (executive powers) to ensure laws work. However, most of the work that happens in government does so through agencies within the federal government. As American life has become more complicated, these agencies have taken on a more significant role in ensuring US citizens have the protections and rights guaranteed in the Constitution than in the past.

Also, some argue that this court decision (and SCOTUS) views the work of federal agencies almost as a threat to Congress's legislative powers (constitutional system). Additionally, the decision establishes precedence for other cases allowing the court to prevent an agency from acting when Congress has already given them the power to do so indirectly.

According to the May 2023 New Labor Forum article, the danger of the “major questions doctrine” is that it is vague. The doctrine relies on SCOTUS to decide what agency actions (political and economic) are significant and which ones are not. Without a clear definition and delineation of what is essential and what is not, justices on the court might look at a particular case and rule strategically in favor or against an economic or policy action. For example, a judge might use the doctrine as a deregulation platform to undo some of the work of Congress and federal agencies. While re-establishing Congress's authority this doctrine might not be so innocuous, possibly giving SCOTUS more power than the framers of the Constitution intended.