15.2 Environmental regulation and climate change litigation
3 min read•july 24, 2024
The Supreme Court's role in environmental regulation has evolved, balancing federal authority with state rights. Key cases like expanded the EPA's scope, while others like limited its power to regulate carbon emissions.
is a complex dance between state and federal laws. The Court navigates this through and , impacting state initiatives and federal policies in areas like vehicle emissions and air quality standards.
Environmental Regulation and Federal Authority
Interpretation of Clean Air Act
Top images from around the web for Interpretation of Clean Air Act
U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Intergovernmental Relationships | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Costs and Benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments | CEPR Blog | CEPR View original
Is this image relevant?
U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Intergovernmental Relationships | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Interpretation of Clean Air Act
U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Intergovernmental Relationships | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Costs and Benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments | CEPR Blog | CEPR View original
Is this image relevant?
U. S. Courts: How do courts interpret contracts and laws? | United States Government View original
Is this image relevant?
Intergovernmental Relationships | American Government View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- (CAA) enacted in 1970, amended 1977 and 1990 empowers EPA to regulate air pollutants including vehicle emissions and industrial sources
- Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) classified greenhouse gases as air pollutants requiring EPA regulation if endangerment finding made expanded agency's scope
- (2014) limited EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under certain CAA programs (Prevention of Significant Deterioration)
- West Virginia v. EPA (2022) restricted EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions from power plants invoking "major questions" doctrine curbed agency discretion
- Court decisions expanded EPA authority in some areas (greenhouse gas regulation) while constraining power in others (emissions trading systems)
- Increased scrutiny of agency actions under CAA demands more robust scientific and economic justifications for regulations
Court's role in environmental federalism
- Federal preemption doctrine stems from Supremacy Clause resolves conflicts between state and federal environmental laws
- (2019) centered on dispute over vehicle emissions standards challenging federal attempts to revoke state's waiver
- (2020) involved challenge to Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy rule asserting states' rights to stricter standards
- Court balances federalism principles with cooperative federalism approach in environmental law (shared state-federal responsibility)
- Decisions impact state environmental initiatives by limiting authority to exceed federal standards (vehicle emissions) while allowing challenges to federal policies (air quality standards)
Climate litigation at Supreme Court
- Climate change litigation types include tort claims against fossil fuel companies (), challenges to government inaction (), regulatory challenges ()
- Potential pathways to Supreme Court involve circuit splits on climate change issues or novel legal theories requiring high court clarification
- Key lower court cases like Juliana v. United States (constitutional right to stable climate) and () may shape future Supreme Court docket
- Supreme Court decisions could establish new legal doctrines on climate obligations, clarify government responsibilities, potentially expand or limit for climate plaintiffs
Balancing environment vs economy
- Statutory interpretation principles include plain meaning rule, legislative intent, consideration of economic impacts when applying environmental laws
- Michigan v. EPA (2015) required consideration of costs in regulating power plants under Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
- traditionally gave agencies leeway in interpreting ambiguous statutes, but recent cases have limited this deference ()
- Court employs balancing tests weighing environmental benefits against economic costs and technological feasibility ( standards)
- Recent decisions emphasize increased economic analysis in environmental regulations potentially constraining aggressive policies (considering compliance costs for industries)
Key Terms to Review (19)
Best available control technology: Best available control technology (BACT) refers to the most effective and advanced methods or technologies available to reduce emissions of pollutants from a facility or operation. It emphasizes the use of technology that is both economically feasible and technologically superior, aiming to minimize environmental impact while allowing industries to operate efficiently. BACT plays a crucial role in environmental regulation, particularly in settings where industries are required to comply with air quality standards and in climate change litigation.
California v. EPA: California v. EPA is a significant legal case where the state of California challenged the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the state's authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than those established by the federal government. This case highlights the tension between state and federal powers in environmental regulation, particularly in the context of climate change litigation and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Chevron deference doctrine: The Chevron deference doctrine is a legal principle that compels courts to defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute that it administers, as long as the statute is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable. This doctrine plays a crucial role in environmental regulation and climate change litigation, as agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) often rely on it when implementing and enforcing laws related to environmental protection.
City of New York v. Chevron: City of New York v. Chevron is a significant legal case that addresses the responsibility of major fossil fuel companies in contributing to climate change. In this case, New York City sued Chevron and other oil companies, claiming they should be held liable for the effects of climate change, including rising sea levels and extreme weather events impacting the city. This case illustrates the growing trend of environmental regulation and climate change litigation aimed at holding corporations accountable for their environmental impact.
City of Oakland v. BP: City of Oakland v. BP is a legal case in which the city of Oakland sued BP and other oil companies for their contributions to climate change, seeking compensation for the damages caused by rising sea levels and extreme weather. This case is significant as it represents a growing trend where municipalities are holding fossil fuel companies accountable for environmental degradation and climate impacts, thus intertwining corporate responsibility with climate change litigation.
Clean Air Act: The Clean Air Act is a comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources, aiming to ensure that air quality meets health and environmental standards. This legislation reflects the ongoing struggle between state and federal authority in managing environmental policy, illustrating the dynamics of governance and the balance of power in regulating air pollution.
Clean Power Plan litigation: Clean Power Plan litigation refers to the legal disputes surrounding the Clean Power Plan (CPP), a regulation established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. This plan sparked significant controversy and led to various lawsuits from states, industry groups, and environmental organizations, highlighting the contentious relationship between federal regulatory authority and state rights in addressing climate change and environmental protection.
Cooperative Federalism: Cooperative federalism is a concept of federalism where the national and state governments work together to solve problems and address issues, blurring the lines between their responsibilities. This approach emphasizes collaboration and partnership, allowing for shared responsibilities in areas like education, transportation, and healthcare. The idea is that different levels of government can achieve more effective results through joint efforts rather than operating independently.
Environmental Federalism: Environmental federalism refers to the division of responsibilities and powers between federal, state, and local governments in managing and regulating environmental policies and issues. This concept emphasizes the collaboration and conflict among different levels of government as they address environmental challenges, such as climate change, pollution control, and natural resource management.
Juliana v. United States: Juliana v. United States is a landmark climate change lawsuit filed in 2015 by a group of young plaintiffs against the federal government, asserting that the government's actions and policies contribute to climate change, violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. This case connects deeply to environmental regulation and climate change litigation as it seeks judicial intervention to compel the government to take meaningful action on climate change, emphasizing the urgent need for effective environmental policies.
Kisor v. Wilkie: Kisor v. Wilkie is a landmark Supreme Court case from 2019 that addressed the issue of deference given to administrative agencies when interpreting their own regulations. The ruling clarified the application of Auer deference, which allows courts to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations if certain criteria are met, thus impacting how environmental regulations and climate change policies are enforced and interpreted.
Major questions doctrine: The major questions doctrine is a legal principle that limits the authority of federal agencies to decide significant policy issues without clear congressional authorization. This doctrine suggests that when a regulatory action involves major economic or political questions, Congress must provide explicit statutory guidance for the agency's actions, ensuring that such important decisions are made through democratic processes rather than by bureaucratic interpretation.
Massachusetts v. EPA: Massachusetts v. EPA was a landmark Supreme Court case in 2007 that addressed the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The case arose when several states, including Massachusetts, sued the EPA for failing to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles, claiming that these emissions contribute to climate change and harm public health. This decision underscored the role of federal agencies in environmental regulation and highlighted the legal standing of states in climate change litigation.
New Jersey v. EPA: New Jersey v. EPA is a significant legal case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had failed to enforce air pollution regulations under the Clean Air Act, particularly concerning states' rights to regulate their own emissions. This case underscores the ongoing tension between state and federal authority in environmental regulation and highlights the challenges of climate change litigation.
Preemption Doctrine: The preemption doctrine is a legal principle that establishes that federal law takes precedence over state laws when there is a conflict between the two. This principle is crucial in environmental regulation and climate change litigation as it determines whether state governments can enforce their own environmental standards or regulations that might differ from or exceed those set by federal authorities.
Public nuisance claims: Public nuisance claims are legal actions taken to address activities or conditions that interfere with the public's use and enjoyment of shared resources, like air and water. These claims can arise from pollution, environmental degradation, or other actions that harm community interests. Such claims are increasingly relevant in the context of environmental regulation and climate change litigation, as communities seek to hold parties accountable for their contributions to environmental harm.
Standing doctrine: The standing doctrine is a legal principle that determines whether a party has the right to bring a lawsuit in court. It requires that the party must have a sufficient connection to the matter at hand, typically involving an injury that is concrete and particularized, as well as a causal relationship between the injury and the conduct being challenged. This doctrine is essential in environmental regulation and climate change litigation, as it helps courts decide who has the legal capacity to challenge governmental actions or inactions related to environmental protection.
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA: Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2014 that dealt with the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. This case is significant because it addressed the balance of power between federal regulatory agencies and the states, as well as the interpretation of environmental laws in the context of climate change.
West Virginia v. EPA: West Virginia v. EPA is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 2022 that addressed the extent of the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. The ruling limited the agency's ability to enforce broad regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, highlighting significant issues regarding federal regulatory powers and environmental policy.