In dissent, Judge Kagan wrote that the law in question in this case gave the authorities sufficient power. “The Clean Air Act was a major law designed to address major public policy issues,” she added. Therefore, Parliament empowers the expert body to deal with problems when they occur and when they occur. “
She added that the agency is best suited to tackle climate change.
“It’s not the Attorney General that regulates health care, nor the CDC that regulates the relationship between landlords and tenants,” she writes. “It is the EPA (the Environmental Protection Agency if the majority forget it) that is working to tackle the biggest environmental problems of our time.”
Understand the Supreme Court’s EPA decision
An important decision. The Supreme Court ruled limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, damaging the Biden administration’s efforts to combat climate change. Here’s what you need to know:
The conservative majority of the Supreme Court generally engages in textualism. This is textualism that focuses on the written language of the law, rather than the larger purpose of the law or the intentions of the drafters. In his 2015 appearance at Harvard Law School, Judge Cagan said that textualism had won across the ideological range. “We are all textualists now,” she said then.
But on Thursday, she wrote, “I seem to have been wrong.”
“Current courts are textualists only if they are suitable,” she writes. “When that method frustrates a broader goal, special norms like” The Doctrine of the Key Question “magically appear as a textless card. “
The incident had an extraordinary history.
Last year, on the last full day of President Donald J. Trump, the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington terminated his administration’s plans to ease restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The Trump administration said the Clean Air Act explicitly limits the measures available to authorities to “buildings, structures, facilities, or anything that can be operated in a facility.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a committee of three divided judges in the court, said the Trump administration’s plan, called the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, was based on a “fundamental misunderstanding” of relevant law. I ruled that. By “a series of tortured misreadings”.