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
Gonzalez v. Google LLC - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 41:15
On February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google LLC.After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action…
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 26:39
On January 17, the Court heard oral argument in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland. The case involves immigration law and whether a court of appeals can review an immigrant’s petition that the Board of Immigration Appeals partici…
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 36:24
On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States.Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a schem…
Moore v. Harper - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 38:52
On December 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper.Following the most recent census, North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state’s supreme…
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 23:21
On December 5, 2022, the Court heard oral argument in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, concerning public accommodation laws, compelled speech, and religious liberty as they relate to a website designer who stated it would be…
MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 23:16
On December 5, 2022, the Court heard oral argument in MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, which concerns appellate jurisdiction under Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m). Join us to hear from Prof. Thomas Plank as he brea…
Wilkins v. United States - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 12:07
On November 30, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wilkins v. United States. The issue at hand is the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations.Tune in to hear Prof. Ilya Somin, a scholar of constitutional law…
United States v. Texas - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 31:07
On November 29, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Texas. The issues at hand include whether states have standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's immigration guidelines and…
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 22:41
On November 8, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. At issue is whether a state can require corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction in order to do business in th…