SLF v. EPA

Supreme Court Declares EPA Power Grab Illegal

About the Case

Southeastern Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of dozens of United States Congress members,  industry associaitons, companies, and think tanks challenging perhaps the most audacious seizure of pure legislative power over domestic economic matters attempted by the executive branch since the 1950’s. The EPA has assumed for itself the authority to promulgate greenhouse-gas emission standards for new motor vehicles and stationary sources subject to the Clean Air Act. But recognizing that it lacked legal authority to do this, it tried to tailor the rules – essentially trying to fit a square peg in a round hold.

Read More

EPA’s assumption of authority to “tailor” stationary source permitting to target a select universe of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters on a scale and schedule of the Agency’s own choosing directly contravenes the carefully chosen numerical permitting thresholds mandated by Congress in the Clean Air Act. This action is an unabashed assault on the foundational structure of the Constitution.  In SLF’s lawsuit, it asked the Supreme Court to confront EPA’s executive overreach and firmly invalidate it.

The United States Supreme Court granted SLF’s petition for certiorari and held argument on whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.

In a landmark win for SLF and its clients, the Supreme Court held that the EPA “lacked authority to “tailor” the Act’s unamiguous numerical thressholds to accomodate its greenhouse-gas-inclusive interpretatin of the permitting triggers.”

Justice Scalia then famously declared that

“to regulate millions of small sources—including retailstores, offices, apartment buildings, shopping centers, schools, and churches—and to decide, on an ongoing basis and without regard for the thresholds prescribed by Congress, how many of those sources to regulate. We are not willing to stand on the dock and wave goodbye as EPA embarks on this multiyear voyage of discovery. We reaffirm the core administrative-law principle that an agencymay not rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate.”

Case Status

Closed - Won

Court

United States Supreme Court

Why This Matters

Our Constitution prohibits the executive branch from repealing or amending parts of duly enacted statutes. And that is for good reason – separation of powers demands the power to make law and execute the law are not held by the same people.

The EPA however, has forgotten these basic foundational principles. Instead, it assumed authority that it does not have to rewrite the Clean Air Act to target a select universe of greenhouse gas emitters.

As James Madison captured in Federalist 51, our federal structure is designed to give unique powers to each branch of government for “keeping each other in their proper places” – the critical separation of powers principles.

The Constitution contemplates that each branch of government will jealously guard its role, thus protecting individual liberty. Although we learn this in middle-school civics class, too many people quickly forget the critical role our government structure plays in guaranteeing our substantive freedoms. If you fall into the camp that can remember Schoolhouse Rock’s “I’m Just a Bill” but can’t quite remember the words to “Three Ring Government,” you are not alone. Members in all three branches of our federal government frequently “forget” them too.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the EPA’s blatant disregard for its lawful boundaries and reaffirmed that agencies are not free to “adopt . . . unreasonable interpretations of statutory provisions and then edit other statu- tory provisions to mitigate the unreasonableness.”

Why This Matters

Our Constitution prohibits the executive branch from repealing or amending parts of duly enacted statutes. And that is for good reason – separation of powers demands the power to make law and execute the law are not held by the same people.

The EPA however, has forgotten these basic foundational principles. Instead, it assumed authority that it does not have to rewrite the Clean Air Act to target a select universe of greenhouse gas emitters.

As James Madison captured in Federalist 51, our federal structure is designed to give unique powers to each branch of government for “keeping each other in their proper places” – the critical separation of powers principles.

The Constitution contemplates that each branch of government will jealously guard its role, thus protecting individual liberty. Although we learn this in middle-school civics class, too many people quickly forget the critical role our government structure plays in guaranteeing our substantive freedoms. If you fall into the camp that can remember Schoolhouse Rock’s “I’m Just a Bill” but can’t quite remember the words to “Three Ring Government,” you are not alone. Members in all three branches of our federal government frequently “forget” them too.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the EPA’s blatant disregard for its lawful boundaries and reaffirmed that agencies are not free to “adopt . . . unreasonable interpretations of statutory provisions and then edit other statu- tory provisions to mitigate the unreasonableness.”

Share This