West Virginia v. EPA - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

West Virginia v. EPA - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Author: The Federalist Society July 28, 2022 Duration: 45:27
On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Clean Air Act Section 111 when it issued the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which sought to control carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing limits based on a “system” of shifting power generation away from fossil fuels and towards renewable fuels at the grid-wide level. Although the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016 before it could take effect, the Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA was the first time it pronounced on the Plan’s merits.

This case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful.

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA’s use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution.

Featuring:
David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPA
Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.

Tuning into the Supreme Court's docket can feel like deciphering a complex code, but SCOTUScast breaks down the arguments and decisions as they happen. Produced by The Federalist Society, this podcast delivers timely, expert analysis from legal scholars and practitioners immediately after oral arguments or when opinions are released. Each episode focuses on a specific case, cutting through the legal jargon to explain the core principles at stake, the questions posed by the justices, and the potential ramifications of the Court's rulings. You'll hear clear, substantive commentary that prioritizes understanding over advocacy, as the Society itself does not take positions on the issues discussed. The goal is to provide listeners with the intellectual tools to engage with these pivotal moments in law. Whether a landmark ruling on constitutional rights or a nuanced interpretation of statutory law, this audio series treats each development with the depth it deserves. For anyone following the judicial branch-from students and attorneys to engaged citizens-this podcast serves as an essential, real-time guide to the nation's highest court, fostering a more informed and thoughtful public discourse.
Author: Language: English Episodes: 100

SCOTUScast
Podcast Episodes
Pulsifer v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 17:53
On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Pulsifer v. United States. The Supreme Court considered an Eighth Circuit case that raised the question: "Must a defendant show he does not meet any of the criter…
Garland v. Cargill - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 47:11
On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Garland v. Cargill. The Court considered whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code.Please join us as…
Trump v. Anderson - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 17:20
On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Trump v. Anderson. At issue was whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ball…
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, CA - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 34:05
On January 9, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, CA. The Court considered whether a building-permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as appli…
SEC v. Jarkesy - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 29:13
On November 29, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The Court considered three questions – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchan…
Moore v. United States - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 27:52
On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. United States. The Court considered whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states. Joi…
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 34:18
On December 4, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. The Court considered whether as part of a plan of reorganization under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, if the Bankruptcy Code author…
United States v. Rahimi - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 36:19
On November 7, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Rahimi. The Court considered whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), prohibiting the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violen…