This lawsuit, if allowed to continue, would have established that individual States can sue “carbon emitters” (i.e. energy production) in other States based upon a rather dubious claim of harm to the citizens of their State.
Striking down this case is the right thing to do.
Acknowledging the EPA isn’t, but as a mechanism Congress has put in place to regulate interstate commerce such that State A cannot sue to halt energy production in State B, it seems to fit the bill.
That's the way I read it as well. I don't understand the responses on this thread either. As you said, striking down this case seems to be the correct course of action. Either people didn't read the article, or I am missing something.
While I disagree that the EPA has any Constitutional mandate - if Congressional law sets them up as an arbiter of interstate commerce between states such that regulation is in place that obviates the need for a State to sue a private concern producing energy in a different state.
It does buy into the EPA having a legitimate function - but that is the domain of Congress and they seem quite willing to legislate oversight/control of their powers to the Executive branches.
It also seems to buy into the idea that there is a legitimate “harm” that can be shown from release of greenhouse gas when it hasn't been shown that temperatures are actually increasing (hide the decline) OR that increasing temperatures harmed anyone (Medieval warm period).
But yes: although the journalistic slant was pro EPA and Ginsburg - the decision arrived at stopped liberal idiot litigation aimed at taxing/fining energy production in different states.
This is an interstate commerce concern in my mind: an ACTUAL one - not a hypothetical - it could be - a crop grown and consumed in one state has a tangential effect on the price of the crop that IS involved in interstate commerce - and thus is subject to federal legislation, etc.