The Supreme Court ruling was about federal regulators

The US Supreme Court has ruled out the Chevron defeasibility doctrine: The good neighbor of the EPA and the role of the courts

While the stay is temporary, the decision signals that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court is likely to rule in favor of states opposing the EPA’s plan if the issue makes it to the nation’s highest court again for a final decision on the plan’s legal merit. That could make it harder to improve air quality across the nation since air pollutants typically don’t stay in one place.

The good neighbor plan is at stake as the EPA fights to keep it alive, despite the decision issued today by SCOTUS. Should voters reelect Donald Trump the Biden administration could lose this battle outside of court. The Trump administration attempted to roll back more than 100 environmental regulations during his term in office.

The rules would not be fully enforced until the year 2026, which angered many states. The plan was put out for a time in 12 states challenging the EPA. The remaining 11 states, Ohio and its fellow plaintiffs say, would face “irreparable, economic injuries” if forced to comply. They also argue that the EPA’s measures would put undue pressure on the power grid and wouldn’t make sense to start to implement since they believe the plan will ultimately get struck down in court.

The Supreme Court’s decision risks bogging down courts with all these nitty gritty questions. They used to be able to punt much of that over to federal agencies, a move that’s out of the playbook now.

On Friday the US Supreme Court overturned a longstanding legal doctrine, meaning that it could hamper federal agencies in regulating all kinds of industry. The doctrine, called Chevron deference, could affect everything from pollution limits to consumer protections in the US.

“Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do,” Chief Justice John Roberts writes in his opinion.