Supreme Court Announcement Stuns Joe Biden – It Could Be Over

It may be that the United States Supreme Court deals a blow to the Biden administration over EPA climate regulations.

Join Our Telegram Chanel Here: Donald Trump News

According to reports, the majority of justices appear poised to pin the EPA’s rulemaking authority in the wake of the Biden administration’s push to implement climate change policies favored by the left-wing political base of the President.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, in which the state sued to limit the EPA’s authority in relation to the Clean Air Act, was heard by the Supreme Court on Monday.

TRENDING: Trump With A Response To Gableman Development!

As a result of the 1970 law, the EPA is empowered “to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health and public welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants,” as published by the EPA.

As reported in The New York Times, President Joe Biden has called for the United States to cut emissions by half by the end of this decade. To achieve his goals, Biden would probably issue and enforce broad new rules through the EPA, according to provisions in the Clean Air Act.

In contrast, The Western Journal stated:

…[A]n appeal from 19 states, led by coal-producing West Virginia and joined by other large coal companies, challenged the EPA’s powers, the BBC reported.

This appeal came ahead of any actual plan from the EPA for regulations on power plants, but the Supreme Court took on the appeal despite this.

The arguments in the case particularly focused on how to interpret the Clean Air Act, which would then directly impact the boundaries of the EPA and what regulations it would be able to put on the power industry.

“While some warned this case could be a Waterloo for the administrative state, most of the oral argument focused narrowly on how to interpret the relevant provisions of the Clean Air Act,” Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler wrote in a recent opinion piece for Reason.

Some legal experts predict, Axios reports, that the EPA’s regulatory authority will be curtailed by the high court thanks to its nominal 6-3 right-leaning majority if the 19-state lawsuit is won.

Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Patriots news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Furthermore, because the SCOTUS has previously sided with conservative interpretations of climate and environmental statutes, Harvard Law professor Richard Lazarus told Axios that the court could decide to “sharply cut back on EPA’s authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired power plants.”

“They could handcuff the federal government’s ability to affordably reduce greenhouse gases from power plants,” Princeton University professor of geosciences and international affairs Michael Oppenheimer told The New York Times.

Further in the Western Journal:

Adler reported that during the arguments the justices mainly focused their questioning on the interpretation of the language of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which focuses on the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Though the Supreme Court already moved forward with the appeal and heard the oral arguments, the Biden administration’s officials have argued that the case is not ready for any court action since the EPA has not yet even put regulations into place for limiting carbon emissions from power plants, Axios reported.

Even though the agency has not yet released new rules, Chief Justice John Roberts noted during arguments that the case is still valid.

“I gather the position would be it’s — just because there’s no regulation doesn’t mean we’re happy. They would like regulation according to their particular perspective. They’d like good regulation, which they think they had with ACE, and now they don’t have it. Again, why isn’t that a justiciable injury? Roberts questioned during oral arguments.

According to Robert Percival, a law professor at the University of Maryland, while Roberts claimed it was a justiciable case, any court ruling at this point would simply be an advisory opinion from the court.

In other SCOTUS news, a Mississippi law aimed at banning abortions after 15 weeks is also being reviewed in the Supreme Court.

At a hearing, Justice Clarence Thomas posed a highly potent question that should concern pro-abortion liberals.

”Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a pre-viable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother?“ he inquired.

The lawyer for Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the organization that wants the law overturned, stated: “That’s not what this case is about, but a woman has a right to make choices about her body.”

The deciding vote might come from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

CNN reported that Roberts and Kavanaugh may be seeking a compromise, where they won’t completely overturn Roe v Wade:

Roberts suggested the court could look at Mississippi’s 15-week law as a new viability standard, rather than Roe and Casey, which is over 20 weeks. And Kavanaugh, meanwhile, has asked to confirm that Mississippi isn’t asking the court to outright prohibit abortion, a way to say it’s not overturning Roe while limiting access.

Join Our Telegram Chanel Here: Donald Trump News

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked a question that seems aimed at the arguments made by abortion-rights advocates that a decision overturning Roe v. Wade would be a step towards the Supreme Court eventually issuing a decision that would outlaw abortion nationwide.

Mississippi is arguing that the Constitution is silent or neutral on the abortion question. Kavanaugh asked Stewart to confirm, which he did.

Kavanaugh suggested that a majority of states – or at least many states – would maintain abortion access.

“The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice … and leaves the issue to the people to resolve in the democratic process,” Kavanaugh explained.