Explained: US Supreme Court’s EPA ruling and what it means for the fight against climate change

The ruling

In a 6-3 ruling, the Justices of the Supreme Court reined back the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal and gas-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act. This is the second consequential move by the conservative-leaning Court in the past week — on June 24, the Court overturned ‘Roe v. Wade’ which had affirmed the constitutional right to abortion.

The current case, West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, is one of the most important climate change-related cases to appear before the top court in decades. The state’s core argument was that the unelected bureaucrats of the EPA — a federal agency — should not be allowed to pass regulations that could significantly reshape its economy (West Virginia is the second-highest coal-producing state in the US).

While Chief Justice John G Roberts and Justices Samuel A Alito Jr, Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Neil M Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett formed the majority, liberal judges Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen G Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “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’. 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.”

In their dissent, Justice Kagan wrote: “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’.”

How we got here

Enacted in 1963, the Clean Air Act — which plays a central role in this issue — is a landmark law that aimed to enhance public health by limiting air pollution from mobile and stationary sources. It also authorised the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

The law was necessitated by the presence of smog and particulates in the air following decades of industrialisation. It is considered a pivotal tool in the US’ fight against pollution and, by extension, climate change. Experts agree that the law was largely successful in curbing the number of small particles in the atmosphere.

However, as the fight against climate change evolved, the attention shifted from the emission of pollutants and ozone to the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and, by extension, the mining and burning of coal. The politicisation of attempts to regulate coal-burning reached its zenith under the Obama administration, driven by lobbying by fossil fuel moguls and conservative leaders who viewed it as an overreach into the principles of capitalism.

As attempts to legislate greenhouse gas emissions failed, then-President Barack Obama took to the EPA to push for regulations to ease the transition from coal to cleaner sources of energy like natural gas or fracking which had become cheaper due to technological advancements. However, this meant that states which were dependent on coal mining for revenue, job and economic stability (like West Virginia) were forced to pay a price.

The larger challenge

Thursday’s ruling is not just about setbacks to climate action — it also threatens to change the way how the government works.

Currently, the US government functions by a mix of executive and legislative actions. This means that while certain issues are dealt with by elected representatives in Congress directly by debates and votes, others are handed over to established federal agencies which have the expertise and agility to regulate the issues under their purview.

For instance, during the coronavirus pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was able to spearhead the vaccination efforts in real-time without waiting for Congress to pass laws approving them. This is particularly crucial as lawmaking, as essential as it is, is often time-consuming and bogged down by deal-making and compromises.

Experts fear that the essence of the new judgment could indicate future challenges to similar efforts to regulate issues by federal agencies.

Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox

What can the Biden administration do?

Reacting to the judgment, Biden reaffirmed his intention to fulfil his campaign promise to police greenhouse gases.

“I have directed my legal team to work with the Department of Justice and affected agencies to review this decision carefully and find ways that we can, under federal law, continue protecting Americans from harmful pollution, including pollution that causes climate change,” he said in a statement.

According to a report in Reuters, experts suggest that the Biden administration has three options in front of them. First, using ambitious and shrewd executive action to advance carefully targeted emissions-cutting steps. Second, bringing together blue states like California which had challenged Trump’s climate rollbacks in court and encouraging them to take action against climate change at state levels. The third option is a long-term game — voting in enough progressive Democrats during the midterm elections to gain a clear majority in Congress so that the rollbacks by the conservative arms of Congress and the Supreme Court can be overcome by the passage of laws.