West Virginia v. EPA

History

• 1970
|

Federal Clean Air Act

In 1970, President Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, significantly expanding the federal government’s role in combating air pollution.

• 2007
|

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

This 2007 case laid the groundwork for future lawsuits forcing the EPA to enact stronger regulations.

Introduction

In 2021, West Virginia filed a lawsuit challenging the D.C. Circuit’s judgment against the ACE rule, alleging that its interpretation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) gives the EPA nearly unlimited power to regulate the energy industry. West Virginia is the second-largest coal producer in the United States. The suit argues that the current understanding of the CAA allows the EPA to place burdensome restrictions on the state of West Virginia, hampering its ability to produce energy. This argument is almost the reverse of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

In 1999, 11 states and several climate advocacy groups joined Massachusetts in petitioning the EPA to regulate four gases, including carbon dioxide, as air pollutants under the CAA. In its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts, finding that the CAA granted the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. This ruling found the EPA not only had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases but that it also had a legal obligation to do so.

Whereas in Mass v. EPA, the states wanted the federal government to enforce more regulations, West Virginia v. EPA argues the restrictions are too harsh. West Virginia v. EPA is also concerned with the nondelegation doctrine, which says Congress cannot delegate its lawmaking powers to other bodies. Essentially, Congress can make a law that administrative agencies enforce, but those agencies cannot write laws themselves.

West Virginia, with the other petitioners, argues that the current understanding of the CAA violates that principle. Therefore, they say the EPA’s present regulatory authority should be vested in the legislative branch, not an executive government agency. The Court’s ruling in summer of 2022, held massive implications restricting the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions.

Clean Power Plan

On August 3, 2015, President Obama announced an ambitious environmental policy known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which tasked the EPA with reducing carbon pollution from power plants. Its proponents in the Obama Administration argued that the Plan was an essential step in addressing climate change by making current energy production more efficient and reducing America’s reliance on fossil fuels through “generation shifting.” Estimates projected it would reduce the energy sector’s greenhouse gas emissions by 32% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. The Obama Administration enacted this Plan under the CAA, allowing the EPA to set state emission goals and requiring states to meet them. In 2016, however, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the CPP following a lawsuit from several states and members of the fossil fuel industry, led by West Virginia, alleging the Plan exceeded the EPA’s authority under the CAA.

Affordable Clean Energy Rule

Most Republicans vehemently opposed the Clean Power Plan, saying it would cost jobs in the American energy sector, and when President Trump arrived in the White House in 2017, he sought to scrap it. Under his direction, the EPA repealed the CPP and introduced its new plan in 2018: the Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE). The ACE rule was significantly less restrictive than the CPP, and estimates projected it would reduce carbon emissions only by 0.7% by 2030. However, like the CPP, the ACE rule faced legal challenges. In 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James led 23 state attorneys general to challenge the new plan. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the 2019 rule, finding the EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act too narrowly in its repeal of the CPP.

Example Prompt

Congress has made a law that students must wear pants to school and has tasked the FBI to make sure students wear their pants! The FBI decides to expand that rule to make sure students only wear yellow pants. This rule violates the nondelegation doctrine because the FBI decided to make its own law instead of following the law made by Congress.

West Virginia, with the other states that joined the lawsuit, argues that the current understanding of the CAA violates the principle of nondelegation because the EPA has been making rules about emissions that Congress never passed. Therefore, they say the EPA’s present regulatory authority should be vested in the legislative branch, not an executive government agency.

Alternatively, the EPA views the regulations they created as interpretations of the CAA. They argue that the CAA tasks them to regulate air quality, including greenhouse gasses protected by Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Court’s ruling, set to come by the summer of 2022, could have massive implications, potentially restricting the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions.

1. Does Congress delegating its laws to the EPA overexpand the Executive Branch and the President’s Powers? [2.6]
2. The Courts had previously said the EPA could regulate greenhouse gasses in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. Will they now side with West Virginia and say the EPA has gone too far? [2.10]
3. How can the EPA use its discretionary and rulemaking authority without violating the nondelegation doctrine? (Hint: How does the EPA interpret the CAA?) [2.13]
4. If Congress passes an ambiguous law, what role do the Executive and Judicial branches play in interpreting that law? [2.15]