Please invest in Our Daily Planet today, by making a one time or monthly contribution.
We do not charge our readers a subscription fee for our content. We want to continue to grow our readership, particularly among millennials and public servants. Voluntary contributions from readers will help us employ interns and freelance journalists, expand our content, and reach a larger audience.
Why This Matters: The Trump administration has been ruthless and careless in its quest to blunt the impacts of the nation’s environmental laws and rollback related policies and regulations. But they can be held to account even by conservative courts, and the language of these Supreme Court decisions could be used against those who try to justify the administration’s decisions. The rule of law still matters. Environmental groups challenging poorly reasoned and explained agency rollbacks, and those that defy the words of the statutes themselves, now have some powerful precedent on their side.
The Plain Language of the Statute
As Prof. Ann Carlson of the UCLA Law School writes on Legal Planet (no relation), the “holding that employers can’t fire LGBTQ workers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, may seem far afield from the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA). But its reasoning could have huge implications for climate change action. ” She reasons that because a prior Supreme Court decision in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA held that air pollutants — very expansively defined in the CAA — include greenhouse gases, then a number of sections of the very complex law seem to either require or authorize EPA to regulate greenhouse gas sources — like power plants and cars. This is true, even though the statute is silent on climate change. And the Court’s decision this week in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, as Carlson put it “gave proponents of using the Clean Air Act for expansive regulation of greenhouse gases a potent new precedent.”
Agencies Must Provide An Adequate Reason
In yesterday’s decision on the legality of the Trump Administration’s rescission of the DACA program, the Court based its decision on a legal principle that requires agencies to provide adequate reasons for rescinding or rolling back rules and to explain the reasons for doing so. The Court yesterday re-affirmed two important principles that guide agency actions. First that an agency decision cannot be justified based on post-hoc rationalizations — the agency has to explain its decisions and can’t keep changing the rationale after the fact searching for better reasons. And second, that in rescinding an earlier action, an agency cannot rescind that regulation or action unless its rationale explains the full decision. The Court said that an agency could not treat “a rationale that applied to only part of a policy as sufficient to rescind the entire policy.” These principles will apply in environmental cases too. As Georgetown University Law School professor William Buzbee (a Friend of the Planet) explained, “Trump reversals have often provided little or no analysis of reliance interests flowing from the earlier action and skimpy analysis of effects of the new actions,” he said. “Such flawed approaches are especially evident in climate deregulatory actions and the ‘waters of the United States’ rollback, but in many other actions as well.”
By Wizipan Little Elk On August 23, 1804, a shot rang out on the wind-swept prairie near what is now called southeastern South Dakota, marking the first buffalo kill of the famous Lewis and Clark reconnaissance expedition. For us Lakota, our neighbors, and our buffalo relatives, it signaled the beginning of what was to become […]
Continuing its set of opinion surveys in the run-up to Earth Day, Gallup has released the results of another poll, finding that the percent of American adults who say that “protection of the environment should be given priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth” has dropped by 15% since 2018. Experts say that this number often correlates with unemployment, which the COVID-19 pandemic greatly increased.
by Amy Lupica, ODP Staff Writer Netflix has announced a commitment to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2022. The plan, called “Net Zero + Nature,” was announced on the Netflix blog by Dr. Emma Stewart, who became the content platform’s first sustainability officer in the fall of 2020. Netflix estimates that its 2020 […]
Our Daily Planet is your daily dose of the stories shaping our world and the ways that you can take action. From the climate crisis to the protection of biodiversity, if these issues matter to you then please subscribe & stay informed!
Your privacy is Important! We promise never to use your email address to send you spam or advertisements.