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
Shurtleff v. City of Boston - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 20:00
On May 2nd, 2022 the Court decided Shurtleff vs. City of Boston. Joining SCOTUScast once more, this time for post-decision analysis, is Professor Scott Gaylord of Elon University School of Law.
FEC v. Ted Cruz - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 15:42
On May 16, 2022 the Court decided Federal Election Commission vs. Ted Cruz for Senate. Listeners may remember our guest today, Professor Bradley A. Smith, the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at C…
Badgerow v. Walters - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 13:02
On March 31, the Court decided Badgerow v. Walters, a case which concerned judicial supervision of arbitration. Joining today to discuss the decision and its implications is Jennifer Dickey, Associate Chief Counsel at th…
United States v. Zubaydah - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 8:40
On Mar 3, 2022, the Court decided United States v. Zubaydah, a case which concerned whether the 9th circuit erred when it rejected the United States’ assertion of the state secrets privilege based on the court’s own asse…
Wooden v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 16:46
On March 7, 2022 the Supreme Court decided Wooden v. United States, holding that William Dale Wooden’s ten burglary offenses arising from a single criminal episode did not occur on different “occasions” and thus count as…
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas - Post-Argument SCOTUScast [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 14:58
On Feb. 22, 2022 the Court heard arguments in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo vs. Texas, a case which concerned sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities. Joining to discuss this case is Anthony J. Ferate, o…