The U.S. Supreme Court has curtailed the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency mandate to curb emissions from power plants. The ruling narrows the executive branch’s ability to regulate these industrial emissions, marking a significant shift in U.S. climate governance.
In a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and supported by five conservative colleagues, the Court found that the Clean Air Act does not grant the EPA broad authority to regulate emissions from facilities that were already in operation when the law was enacted.
The ruling does not challenge carbon dioxide limits themselves, which the court described as a practical response to the climate crisis; rather it questions whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to enforce those limits under the Clean Air Act, a framework established decades ago.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the decision, arguing that it would lead to more preventable deaths by allowing higher pollution levels, a statement issued moments after the ruling was announced.
The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, welcomed the ruling as a restoration of power to the people, a stance that echoes criticisms often voiced by conservatives regarding federal regulatory reach in general.
Three progressive Supreme Court justices issued a dissent, contending that Congress has delegated to the EPA the authority to address what they termed the largest environmental challenge of our time. They argued that the Court has effectively claimed policy-making power for itself rather than leaving it to Congress or the environmental agency. “I can’t think of a more unsettling trend,” wrote Judge Elena Kagan in the dissent.
Some U.S. media view the decision as part of a broader pattern in which a conservative majority curtails federal agency powers in favor of tighter legislative control.
Calls for new pollution-control legislation
The Sierra Club, one of the nation’s oldest environmental organizations, condemned the Court’s decision while urging President Joe Biden to push new laws to limit pollution.
“Our future depends on it,” said Andres Restrepo, attorney for the organization’s environmental law program.
President Biden’s climate agenda faced renewed scrutiny when a Senate stalemate blocked the so-called Build Back Better program, an ambitious plan to invest heavily in climate initiatives. The political impasse has left some observers worried about the pace of federal action on climate change.
A spokesperson for the United Nations Secretary-General described the ruling as a setback for global efforts to curb emissions from power plants, underscoring the international dimension of U.S. climate policy.
Reactions from Spain
Spanish environmental groups expressed disappointment with the decision. Greenpeace España condemned what they called the Court’s decisive stance against climate action, arguing it limits the federal government’s ability to protect people and ecosystems.
José Luis García, a representative for Greenpeace España, suggested the court’s course appeared aligned with corporate interests, implying that American judges may be prioritizing industry ties over public health. He warned that the ruling could threaten the health and safety of families and future generations.
Irene Rubiera, affiliated with Ecologista en Acción, noted that the decision reflected the influence of fossil-fuel supporters who back the Republican majority in Congress. Rubiera stressed that real progress against climate change requires efforts at every level, from states to national government, and cautioned that the presidency would be constrained unless Congress acts.
Rubiera also emphasized the urgency of sustained climate action to address ongoing environmental threats.
Other remarks and commentary followed as the discussion shifted from immediate legal implications to long-term policy strategies.
…
Environment department contact address:[redacted]