Earlier this month, at the close of the U.S. Supreme Court’s term, nine justices handed down a decision upending the landmark Chevron Deference, which has stood for 40 years. The decision will limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce and regulate everything from greenhouse gas emissions to water and air pollution.

This represents a huge setback for climate regulation in the US, and while the decision is centered on the EPA, it will have wide-reaching implications for other government agencies responsible for everything from transportation and workplace safety to securities and labor protections. The Biden administration has warned the holding could have a “convulsive” impact on the future of the functioning of the government in the U.S.

As we wrote in a previous newsletter: “Two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, could reverse or significantly curb what’s known as the Chevron doctrine, which, according to ArsTechnica, holds that “when the meaning of a law is disputed, the federal agency’s interpretation should be given deference as long as it is reasonable.”  The court had previously kneecapped the EPA's ability to mandate carbon emissions reductions in 2022.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Chevron precedent “is overruled” and continued by breaking down the legal theory that had stood for 40 years, using words such as “misguided,” “unworkable,” and “gravely erred.”

In addition to upending the decision, Roberts went one further to shift more power to the Judiciary branch, writing, “The constitution assigns to the federal judiciary the responsibility and power to adjudicate cases and controversies,” Roberts wrote. “Agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

According to the New York Times, 70 Supreme Court decisions have been based on the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision, and more than 17,000 decisions in lower courts have relied on the precedent.

While all this sounds very technical, it has tremendous implications for a wide array of legal outcomes, regulations, and more. For environmental regulations specifically, it throws rules that govern emissions, water and air pollution, and environmental protection into a morass of expensive, drawn-out legal battles in front of judges who have little to no scientific or environmental understanding.

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Elana Kagan, notes the decision as a power grab, writing, “A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.” She continued, "In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country's administrative czar."

In addition to gutting the EPA, the activist conservative court also dismantled what’s known as the “Good Neighbor” rule. The ruling that also came down last week kneecaps the EPA’s ability to enforce a vital rule restricting smokestack emissions from industrial and power plants that impact downwind areas with pollution.

The Chevron ruling is also likely to further delay the SEC’s climate rules, which would govern whether large companies disclose their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions as well as their climate risk as part of their financial due diligence.

Part of a Larger Plan from the Far Right

Political observers and legal experts have not been surprised at this turn of events. In fact, it was somewhat expected given the rhetoric that the extreme right has been spewing for years, and former President Trump’s continual, flagrant threats to democracy and environmental conservation. Trump has made repeated threats to “dismantle the EPA,” roll back what the extreme right calls  “EV mandates,” and undo the IRA bill, which has already improved emissions, according to Princeton University.

There’s also the added layer of the far right’s plan, Project 2025, which is being pushed by the right-wing Heritage Foundation and initially embraced by Trump, though this week he’s said that he knows nothing about the plan. The 900-plus-page document is dedicated to plans to further dismantle the core pillars of democracy (including but not limited to the FBI, Department of Labor, and Department of Health, amongst others) and specifically focuses on the EPA and the regulations that keep the population healthy and safe.

An entire chapter is dedicated to further stripping the EPA of its regulatory role in ensuring that everything from our water to our air is safe, but as NPR points out repeatedly in a 2023 interview with the author of the chapter, none of it is based on scientific reports and data from NOAA, NASA, the United Nations or the Pentagon. Mandy Gunasekara is the author of the chapter and a former Trump-nominated EPA chief of staff with no environmental or scientific experience beyond heading up the Energy 45 Fund, “a Jackson, Mississippi-based non-profit dedicated to informing the public about the energy, environmental and economic gains made under the Trump Administration.”

According to Politico, the plan outlined in the conservative Project 2025 would eliminate the EPA's enforcement office, “reset” science advisory boards, and review EPA grants, among other tremendous shifts in how and where the EPA operates. As Stan Meiburg, a 39-year veteran of the EPA, told Politico, “the proposal largely repeats right-wing attacks on the agency.”

The EPA has been a central pillar in President Biden’s efforts to curb climate change, and Project 2025 would end that should Trump win the presidency in November. However, with the addition of the two Supreme Court rulings last week, the future of the EPA’s ability to regulate pollution, emissions, and fight against climate change is in serious question.

As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent to the Chevron ruling last week, “The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”