To cap off its term, the Supreme Court handed down a much-awaited decision in West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency. The decision, which severely limits the EPA’s presumed authority over carbon emissions, is being celebrated as a big win for those wishing to see regulatory power curbed.
In its decision, the Court — via Chief Justice Roberts — determined that “Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” and that on the question of “whether the ‘best system of emission reduction’ identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act,” the answer is a resounding “No.”
The Court’s decision is more than just a win for the energy industry, however. Based on the Court’s ruling, we are looking at a future where the legislative branch of the government actually has to legislate.
In today’s ruling, the Supreme Court has decided the legislative branch, not the executive, is actually in charge of rule-making. A federal bureaucracy has only the power it is specifically granted by Congress. The decision reaffirms what is specifically stated in the Constitution as far as the powers of each branch go.
Article I of the Constitution specifically states that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” while Article II tasks the executive branch with taking care that “laws be faithfully executed.” There is a clear separation of powers between the two branches, and there is Supreme Court precedent that Congress isn’t allowed to “abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested,” as determined in A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States.