A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision will pave the way for further legal challenges and potential setbacks to California's landmark clean air rule and numerous other federal environmental protections.
Last week, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine, a long-standing precedent that directs U.S. courts to defer to federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. By striking down this legal doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively stripped power from federal administrative agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, giving U.S. courts more power to independently determine whether newly enacted regulations are consistent with federal law.
The six justices who voted to overturn the deference rule were appointed by Republican presidents, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion. The decision was overruled by Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, all three of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents.
Proactive and impactful reporting on climate change, environment, health and science.
“What actions can we take to address climate change and other environmental challenges?” Kagan asked. “What will the nation's health care system look like in the coming decades? Or its financial or transportation systems? What are the rules that will limit the development of AI?”
“We expect the courts to play a leading role in all areas of current and future federal regulation going forward.”
After years of political division and congressional gridlock, the EPA has been forced to use decades-old environmental laws to craft modern regulations to slow climate change and crack down on pollution from new industries. Legal experts say the ruling could have a chilling effect on ambitious federal regulation, which will now be overseen by a federal court staffed by President Trump appointees.
That could also pose problems for California's auto emissions regulations, which have relied on an Obama- and Biden-era interpretation of the Clean Air Act, which was last revised in 1990 but never mentioned greenhouse gases.
The Supreme Court's decision comes as at least nine of California's clean air regulations await EPA approval. Numerous legal battles over state zero-emission vehicle mandates and other emissions standards.
“Courts have a right to hear the agency's arguments, but they don't have to respect them,” said Julia Stein, associate director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the UCLA School of Law. “Courts have the leeway to adopt their own interpretations.”
The Supreme Court's decision could also have an impact on the Clean Water Act, which regulates pollution of water bodies.
The law applies to “navigable waters,” so it's unclear whether it would cover habitats like wetlands and streams.
The possibility of federal courts changing environmental rules underscores the importance of states writing their own laws, Stein said.
“California has a unique statutory system that is rigorously enforced by state agencies across the country,” Stein said of water regulations, “so even if something happens at the federal level, there's a very strong backup at the state level to administer it.”
