The 6-3 decision overturned a lower court ruling that gave the federal agency virtually absolute regulatory powers through the Clean Air Act.
The case — West Virginia v. EPA — derives from the agency adopting the Affordable Clean Energy rule in 2019 to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which the Trump administration repealed after a 2016 Supreme Court ruling stopped its execution.
WATCH: BIDEN CLAIMS INFLATION WAS 9% WHEN HE GOT IN OFFICE
Several Democratic states, including New York, sued to block the repeal. A federal appeals court in the District of Columbia concurred with the states but tossed both the Clean Power Plan and the Affordable Clean Energy rule, leaving nothing in effect while the Biden administration drafted a new policy.
NIGHT OPERATION UNCOVERS THE TRAGIC FATE OF THREE MUSICAL FESTIVAL HOSTAGES IN GAZA TUNNEL
West Virginia and 18 other Republican-led states and coal companies appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court had given the EPA too much authority to regulate emissions, even going above what Congress intended.
WATCH VIVEK: "WHAT IS THE CRIME THAT DONALD TRUMP COMMITTED?"
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts decided with the states that “it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.”
ANIMAL PRIDE: NBC'S UPCOMING 'QUEER PLANET' EXPOSES NATURE’S HIDDEN LGBTQ+ LIFE
“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he added.
Roberts also noted that the EPA claimed to have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions only after Congress declined to expand that authority through legislation.
WILL BIDEN’S DEBATE DEMANDS TURN THE TIDE OR DROWN HIS CHANCES?
“At bottom, the Clean Power Plan essentially adopted a cap-and-trade scheme, or set of state cap-and-trade schemes, for carbon,” the chief justice wrote. ” … Congress, however, has consistently rejected proposals to amend the Clean Air Act to create such a program. It has also declined to enact similar measures, such as a carbon tax … Given these circumstances, our precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA’s claim …”
Justice Elena Kagan, followed in her dissent by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said the decision disarms the EPA at a time when the country is facing “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
“The Court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening,” Kagan wrote.
NO SO MAGICAL: THE COPPERFIELD-EPSTEIN CONNECTION THAT'S RAISING EYEBROWS EVERYWHERE
President Biden blasted the decision in a statement, saying it ” aims to take our country backwards.”
CAPITOL RECOGNITION: A TRUE AMERICAN EVANGELIST EARNS BIG HONOR...
” While this decision risks damaging our nation’s ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my lawful authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis,” the president said, accusing the court of siding with “special interests that have waged a long-term campaign to strip away our right to breathe clean air.”
Discover alternative ideas that will make you think
Engage in mind bending debate
Earn points, rise in rank, have fun
