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
Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 22:01
On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denyi…
United States v. Tsarnaev - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 10:05
On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Tsarnaev. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the First Circuit, holding that the court improperly vac…
Carson v. Makin - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 40:04
On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Carson v. Makin. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court held that Maine's "nonsectarian" r…
Patel v. Garland - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 13:17
On May 16, 2022 the Court decided Patel v. Garland, holding that Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of any judgment relating to the granting of discretionary relief in immigration proceedings…
Golan v. Saada - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 11:15
On June 15, 2022 the Court decided Golan v. Saada, holding that a court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a fo…
Vega v. Tekoh - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 9:44
On June 23rd, the Court decided Vega vs. Tekoh, a case which concerned whether an un-mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the fifth amendment and might support a section 1983 claim a…
Viking River Cruises v. Moriana - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 13:59
On March 30th, the Court heard oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. vs. Moriana, a case which concerned whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that…
Siegel v. Fitzgerald - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 8:21
In April, 2022, the Court heard arguments in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, a bankruptcy case concerning fee increase exemptions in two states. Joining today to discuss the argument is Allyson Ho, partner in the Dallas Office of…
Morgan v. Sundance - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 13:40
On May 23, 2022 the Court decided Morgan vs. Sundance. Joining today to discuss the 9-0 decision is Stephen J. Ware, the Frank Edwards Tyler Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Kansas Law School.