Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2024
Abstract
In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked the statutory authority to implement the Clean Power Plan, a regulation designed to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions by encouraging the use of non-coal energy sources. The Court’s decision was primarily grounded in the "major questions doctrine," which asserts that courts may reject agency actions that involve significant and consequential powers not reasonably inferred from Congressional intent, even if a statute is unclear. This decision raised concerns among commentators that it might severely restrict environmental regulations and the broader administrative state. However, the Court's majority opinion is written in narrow terms, emphasizing the unique facts of the case and suggesting that the ruling could be distinguished in future contexts. Thus, the decision should not be seen as a definitive blow to greenhouse gas regulation or environmental protections. This Essay is structured in three parts: Part I provides a summary of the West Virginia v. EPA case; Part II examines the majority opinion, focusing on its reliance on the unique facts of the case; and Part III draws an analogy between this decision and federal jurisprudence under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, offering a broader perspective on administrative authority.
Recommended Citation
Michael Lewyn, West Virginia v. EPA: Maybe a Big Deal, but Maybe Not, 98 St. John's L. Rev. 643 (2024).
Source Publication
St. John's Law Review
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
