Supreme Court restricts Biden’s ability to reduce emissions.

The Supreme Court historic decision is a major setback for President Joe Biden’s climate plans.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has diminished.

He referred to it as a “devastating decision” but stated that it would not hinder his efforts to combat the climate crisis.

West Virginia filed the lawsuit against the EPA on behalf of 18 other predominantly Republican-led states and some of the nation’s largest coal companies.

They argued that the agency lacked the authority to set statewide emission limits.

These 19 states were concerned that their power sectors would be compelled to abandon coal at a steep economic price.

With a vote of 6-3, the court agreed with the conservative states and fossil-fuel companies that the EPA lacked the authority to impose such far-reaching regulations.

Attorney General Eric Schmitt of Missouri, one of the 19 states, referred to it as a “huge victory… that pushes back against the job-killing regulations of the Biden EPA.”

The Supreme court has not completely barred the EPA from enacting these regulations in the future but states that Congress must expressly grant this authority. In addition, Congress has previously rejected the EPA’s proposed carbon reduction programs.

In the past, the 19 states that brought the case have made little progress in reducing their emissions, which is necessary to limit climate change. As a result, environmental groups will be extremely concerned about the outcome.

In 2018, the states accounted for 44% of U.S. emissions, and since 2000, they have only reduced their emissions by an average of 7%.

Vickie Patton, general counsel for Environmental Defense Fund, stated, “Today’s Supreme Court ruling undermines EPA’s authority to protect people from climate pollution at a time when all evidence shows we must act with great urgency” (EDF).

President Biden is now dependent on a change in policy from these states or a change in Congress for the United States to achieve its climate goals.

This is a significant setback for the president, who campaigned on a platform of increasing U.S. environmental and climate efforts.

On his first day in office, he re-entered the United States into the Paris Agreement, the world’s first legally binding accord on climate change targets.

In addition, he pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 52 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels.

While this decision threatens our nation’s ability to maintain clean air and combat climate change, I will not relent in using my legal authorities to protect public health and combat the climate crisis,” he said.

Governments around the world will take note of the outcome of this case, as it will impact global efforts to combat climate change. The United States is responsible for approximately 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

A spokesman for the United Nations described it as “a setback in our fight against climate change,” but added that no single nation could derail the international effort.

This decision could affect the EPA’s existing and future regulatory responsibilities, including consumer protection, workplace safety, and public health, in the United States.

Hajin Kim, assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago, tells that the decision gives courts “enormous power” to target other regulations they dislike.

She adds that this is because judges can argue that Congress did not expressly authorize the agency to carry out a particular action.

The Supreme Court has held for decades that judges should generally defer to executive agencies when interpreting federal statutes. The conservative majority continued its recent trend of chipping away at this practice on Thursday.

In its place, the court’s justices adopted what is known as the “major questions doctrine,” which holds that a federal agency’s discretion is limited when it comes to major issues involving expansive regulatory actions. If Congress had intended for the Environmental Protection Agency to be able to regulate an entire sector of the U.S. economy, the Clean Air Act would have expressly granted this authority.

In January, a similar majority of the court cited the major questions doctrine to reject the Biden administration’s attempt to use a federal workplace law to mandate vaccinations for employees of large companies.

It is now evident that this court will view with skepticism agency attempts to implement significant regulatory changes by citing vague or broad laws. Given how difficult it has been for Congress to pass substantive new legislation in recent years, this is a significant development. It may soon be impossible for presidents to find unilateral “workarounds” to existing laws.