I cannot begin to read all that, but it appears that the thrust of the decision is that the EPA does not have rule-making, or law-making power. It remains to be seen how narrow or wide this ruling applies - I’ll leave that up to the experts. I guess that the bigger the tantrum on the left, the better the ruling is. :)
I hope it’s a wide-enough scope that it covers all of the executive branch entities - FDA, CDC, FBI, EPA, DOE. Time to reign in their dictatorial powers.
Yes, it’s going to take a lot of reading to fully understand the decision.
My initial take is that the court is saying the agency can make regulations but only to the extent that Congress gives them specific direction to do so...in this case they didn’t have any such direction so they couldn’t do it.
If that is correct then it doesn’t get completely rid of agencies’ regulatory writing but it does curtail it to specifically legislated direction....it’s a start
The stay at home decision didn’t go our way though looks like they basically said lifting it was ok...i’m guessing because the imposing was also ok and a new admin can lift what a prior one imposed
“...I hope it’s a wide-enough scope that it covers all of the executive branch entities...”
*********************************************************
“wide-enough” IS THE question. Hopefully, it will bring the biggest hammer possible down on ALL of the unelected “Agencies” forcing their rules down our throats.
How it is implemented...that’s the next big question.
A couple paragraphs from the EPA dcecision today (added breaks for easier reading):
...
The dissent contends that there is nothing surprising about EPA dictating the optimal mix of energy sources nationwide, since that sort of mandate will reduce air pollution from power plants, which is EPA’s bread and butter. Post, at 20–22. But that does not follow.
Forbidding evictions may slow the spread of disease, but the CDC’s ordering such a measure certainly “raise[s] an eyebrow.” Post, at 18.
We would not expect the Department of Homeland Security to make trade or foreign policy even though doing so could decrease illegal immigration.
And no one would consider generation shifting a “tool” in OSHA’s “toolbox,” post, at 21, even though reducing generation at coal plants would reduce workplace illness and injury from coal dust.
...
It is one thing for Congress to authorize regulated sources to use trading to comply with a preset cap, or a cap that must be based on some scientific, objective criterion, such as the 30 WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA Opinion of the Court NAAQS. It is quite another to simply authorize EPA to set the cap itself wherever the Agency sees fit.
...
“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”