{"id":8755,"date":"2022-08-31T15:49:23","date_gmt":"2022-08-31T15:49:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=8755"},"modified":"2022-08-31T15:49:23","modified_gmt":"2022-08-31T15:49:23","slug":"impact-of-supreme-courts-climate-ruling-spreads","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=8755","title":{"rendered":"Impact of Supreme Court’s climate ruling spreads"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“Fallout from the Supreme Court\u2019s attack on federal climate regulations is spreading throughout the executive branch, creatinglegal uncertainty for rules on topics as far afield as abortion, immigration and even amateur auto racing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opponents of federal actions on pipelines, asbestos, nuclear waste, corporate disclosures and highway planning are also seizing on the logic of the court\u2019s June 30 decision<\/a>, which imposed sharp limits on the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“In their decision, the high court\u2019s six conservative justices invoked what they called the \u201cmajor questions\u201d doctrine to declare that agencies such as EPA need explicit congressional approval before \u201casserting highly consequential power\u201d over almost any policy area. But they did not offer a precise definition of what would cause a regulation to qualify as major \u2014 a question that agencies and lower courts may now need to spend years wrestling with.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“\u201cIf anything\u2019s ambiguous at all, you get people challenging on major questions grounds, and you have to go find out if Congress gave you an extra clear statement,\u201d said Nathan Richardson, a law professor at the University of South Carolina. He called it a reversal of the long-standing tradition of courts deferring to agencies\u2019 policy expertise. \u201cIt\u2019s not deference, it\u2019s anti-deference.\u201d”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2022\/07\/20\/chill-from-scotus-climate-ruling-hits-wide-range-of-biden-actions-00045920<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Fallout from the Supreme Court\u2019s attack on federal climate regulations is spreading throughout the executive branch, creating legal uncertainty for rules on topics as far afield as abortion, immigration and even amateur auto racing.<\/p>\n

Opponents of federal actions on pipelines, asbestos, nuclear waste, corporate disclosures and highway planning are also seizing on the logic of the court\u2019s June 30 decision, which imposed sharp limits on the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“In their decision, the high court\u2019s six conservative justices invoked what they called the \u201cmajor questions\u201d doctrine to declare that agencies such as EPA need explicit congressional approval before \u201casserting highly consequential power\u201d over almost any policy area. But they did not offer a precise definition of what would cause a regulation to qualify as major \u2014 a question that agencies and lower courts may now need to spend years wrestling with.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“\u201cIf anything\u2019s ambiguous at all, you get people challenging on major questions grounds, and you have to go find out if Congress gave you an extra clear statement,\u201d said Nathan Richardson, a law professor at the University of South Carolina. He called it a reversal of the long-standing tradition of courts deferring to agencies\u2019 policy expertise. \u201cIt\u2019s not deference, it\u2019s anti-deference.\u201d”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[105,103,1313,104,236,551,528],"class_list":["post-8755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-climate-change","tag-environment","tag-epa","tag-global-warming","tag-regulation","tag-regulations","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8755","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8755"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8755\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8756,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8755\/revisions\/8756"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}