15.2 Environmental regulation and climate change litigation

The Supreme Court's role in environmental regulation has evolved, balancing federal authority with state rights. Key cases like Massachusetts v. EPA expanded the EPA's scope, while others like West Virginia v. EPA limited its power to regulate carbon emissions.

Environmental federalism is a complex dance between state and federal laws. The Court navigates this through preemption doctrine and cooperative federalism, impacting state initiatives and federal policies in areas like vehicle emissions and air quality standards.

Environmental Regulation and Federal Authority

Interpretation of Clean Air Act

Top images from around the web for Interpretation of Clean Air Act

• 

  U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Intergovernmental Relationships | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Costs and Benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments | CEPR Blog | CEPR View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Intergovernmental Relationships | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Interpretation of Clean Air Act

• 

  U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Intergovernmental Relationships | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Costs and Benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments | CEPR Blog | CEPR View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Intergovernmental Relationships | American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Clean Air Act (CAA) enacted in 1970, amended 1977 and 1990 empowers EPA to regulate air pollutants including vehicle emissions and industrial sources
• Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) classified greenhouse gases as air pollutants requiring EPA regulation if endangerment finding made expanded agency's scope
• Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014) limited EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under certain CAA programs (Prevention of Significant Deterioration)
• West Virginia v. EPA (2022) restricted EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions from power plants invoking "major questions" doctrine curbed agency discretion
• Court decisions expanded EPA authority in some areas (greenhouse gas regulation) while constraining power in others (emissions trading systems)
• Increased scrutiny of agency actions under CAA demands more robust scientific and economic justifications for regulations

Court's role in environmental federalism

• Federal preemption doctrine stems from Supremacy Clause resolves conflicts between state and federal environmental laws
• California v. EPA (2019) centered on dispute over vehicle emissions standards challenging federal attempts to revoke state's waiver
• New Jersey v. EPA (2020) involved challenge to Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy rule asserting states' rights to stricter standards
• Court balances federalism principles with cooperative federalism approach in environmental law (shared state-federal responsibility)
• Decisions impact state environmental initiatives by limiting authority to exceed federal standards (vehicle emissions) while allowing challenges to federal policies (air quality standards)

Climate litigation at Supreme Court

• Climate change litigation types include tort claims against fossil fuel companies (City of New York v. Chevron), challenges to government inaction (Juliana v. United States), regulatory challenges (Clean Power Plan litigation)
• Potential pathways to Supreme Court involve circuit splits on climate change issues or novel legal theories requiring high court clarification
• Key lower court cases like Juliana v. United States (constitutional right to stable climate) and City of Oakland v. BP (public nuisance claims) may shape future Supreme Court docket
• Supreme Court decisions could establish new legal doctrines on climate obligations, clarify government responsibilities, potentially expand or limit standing doctrine for climate plaintiffs

Balancing environment vs economy

• Statutory interpretation principles include plain meaning rule, legislative intent, consideration of economic impacts when applying environmental laws
• Michigan v. EPA (2015) required consideration of costs in regulating power plants under Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
• Chevron deference doctrine traditionally gave agencies leeway in interpreting ambiguous statutes, but recent cases have limited this deference (Kisor v. Wilkie)
• Court employs balancing tests weighing environmental benefits against economic costs and technological feasibility (Best Available Control Technology standards)
• Recent decisions emphasize increased economic analysis in environmental regulations potentially constraining aggressive policies (considering compliance costs for industries)