The Environment: Supreme Court

Hayley Bilik
Dr. Elizabeth S. Smith
PSC-101-05 American Government
February 6, 2017
The Environment: Supreme Court The Supreme Court is the highest judicial court in the United States, and its purpose is to ensure that the Constitution is followed correctly. The Court consists of nine justices, and has traditionally achieved higher approval ratings from the public as opposed to the President and Congress. Justices are selected through a vigorous system, combining factors such as merit, alignment with the current president’s ideals, recompense, and representation of diverse groups that the current president believes deserves representation. In order for a case to even be heard by the Court it must go through a specific vetting process. A writ
of certiorari must be submitted; by doing so a formal request is made to the Court to view a case that would traditionally be viewed by a lower court. Even after submitting a writ of certiorari, there is no guarantee that the case will be heard. The unwritten but strongly enforced Rule of Four establishes that at least four justices must agree to permit a case to be heard.
Post decision of a case, Supreme Court justices engage in writing their respective opinions, which, due to the lasting influence, is often regarded as the “lasting legacy of the case” (Barbour and Wright 2015, 303). Through these opinion writings, justices are able to express their agreement or disagreement with the majority ruling. President Trump has the opportunity to appoint his own nominee for the Supreme Court, allowing for him to pick someone whose political ideals align with his own, enabling him to further his political agenda. His nominee, Neil Gorsuch, upholds Trump’s conservative ideologies, including his stance on environmental issues (need to quantify the statement). His addition would put Republican justices at a 5:4 majority, greatly increasing their potential for swaying decisions in favor of conservative ideals. Trump himself could be classified as a skeptic of climate change, and therefore an avid advocator for reduced climate change research and action (Mantel 2017). Reviewing recent Supreme Court cases regarding our changing climate can provide an interesting contrast as the Supreme
Court is likely to undergo a massive change following Neil Gorsuch as Trump’s pick. (Barbour and Wright 2015, 293-305). In 2013, Obama expressed his frustration with the country’s apparent inability to pass “meaningful climate change legislation”, stating that immediate action was necessary (Mukerjee 2015, 348).
In particular he discussed the need to address carbon emissions from both newly-constructed and preexisting power plants. Following this declaration, the Supreme Court seemed to condone increasing federal involvement within the usual realm of state-control, specifically where states have appeared to neglect their duties. The challenge is finding the balance between increased federal control while still preserving some semblance of states’ traditional regulatory controls. The election of Trump may sway such responsibilities back into state control, as traditionally conservatives are in favor of decreased federal involvement in favor of increased state authority. The Supreme Court in the 2014 case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA ruled against the EPA, indicating a lack of support in terms of the EPA’s efforts to regulate “polluters that had not been historically subject to CAA requirements.” (Mukerjee 2015, 350). The EPA’s attacks on such groups threatens growth of the national economy, and also indicates a broader trend of the EPA traveling through federal channels rather than the traditional regulation under the Clean Air Act via the states. This change is a direct reflection of the growing seriousness of environmental issues, making issues of regulation more time sensitive as
the EPA works against the rapid warming of the planet. Contrasting this decision was the ruling of EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. Through this decision the Court granted the EPA “direct regulation of electricity generation” (Mukerjee 2015, 350). Further pushing the boundaries of the established domain of federal jurisdiction was the decision for involvement within interstate ozone pollution. Federal involvement would be beneficial in such a scenario because ozone pollution has the ability to harm several states with a singular source- despite being generated in one state, wind could push it across state lines, harming both the environment and the citizens. Despite the ruling in favor of the EPA’s opposition in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, this decision does not serve as an exemplification to the Supreme Court’s overall feelings towards the EPA. However, this case might serve as an example of future Court decisions regarding environmental issues following the addition of conservative Neil Gorsuch as the ninth justice. (Mukerjee 2015, 347-71). Following Obama’s 2013 statement on expanding the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to address state carbon emissions. In 2015, the EPA published the Clean Power Plan, a federal plan that focuses on reducing carbon emissions and the broader negative effects of climate change via an emissions trading program through the most cost-effective means (Wilkins 2016). Emissions trading refers to the buying and selling of emission allowances in accordance with how much pollutant each source is putting out. Each state would be required to submit a formal plan outlining their regulation procedure. Each state’s official proposal is subject to change by the federal government, again displaying the larger trend of increased government participation in issues that are customarily state-dominated. Again this trend is subject to change with the likelihood of a conservative majority with the Court. (Wilkins 2016). Through the analysis of Supreme Court cases through the past couple of years it is clear that a trend of increased government regulation within industries that have the potential to be environmentally harmful is occurring. Although the EPA has historically acted through the Clean Air Act within state legislation in 2013, Obama made an official statement that essentially claimed that America was not doing enough towards climate change, and that if increasing federal regulation was necessary in order to instill change then so be it. Cases such as EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. indicate Supreme Court support for increased government regulation. However, as seen through Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court does not always rule in favor of the environment. Following the likely addition of Neil Gorsuch as Trump’s pick for the ninth justice, the Republicans will have the majority (5:4), giving them the capacity to swing major decisions in their favor. If they uphold traditional conservative values regarding the environment, it is likely they will rule in favor of reducing critical scientific research as well as placing the power back into the hands of the states that neglected such issues in the past.