The EPA's view of its authority, Roberts writes, "was not only unprecedented; it also effected a 'fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation' into an entirely different knd."
the only interpretive question before
us, and the only one we answer, is more narrow: whether
the “best system of emission reduction” identified by EPA
in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted
to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For
the reasons given, the answer is no.5
Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will
force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to
generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis
of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187
(1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the
authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in
Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence
rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant
to a clear delegation from that representative body.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to
“the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
Reading Kagan's Dissenting Opinions is a two drink minimum. The Chicago gun ruling when she was new to the court, her Dissenting Opinion should have been written in crayons.
someone tldr it...so many worrrds
The EPA's view of its authority, Roberts writes, "was not only unprecedented; it also effected a 'fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation' into an entirely different knd."
This passage is the good part.
the only interpretive question before us, and the only one we answer, is more narrow: whether the “best system of emission reduction” identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons given, the answer is no.5
Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
And kagans dissent is a good summary too. Lol
Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
The idiot kagan also said this. Lol. Preach sister
First, Members of Congress often don’t know enough— and know they don’t know enough—to regulate sensibly on an issue.
Reading Kagan's Dissenting Opinions is a two drink minimum. The Chicago gun ruling when she was new to the court, her Dissenting Opinion should have been written in crayons.