Trump, the Court, and Climate

Author: Darby Osborne

Editor: Natalia Freeze

Trump and the conservative movement have identified the Supreme Court as a necessary instrument to achieve their vision of a weakened federal government with fewer regulatory powers. Following last term’s overturning of the Chevron doctrine, the landscape of environmental regulation has been fundamentally altered. To understand the gravity of this decision and its impact on future cases, this article examines the Chevron decision along with other important rulings and pending environmental cases before the Supreme Court. 

Previous Rulings

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo 

One of the most impactful cases of the last Supreme Court term, the ruling in Loper Bright undid four decades of legal precedent known as Chevron Deference. This precedent required judges to defer to agency-based interpretations of ambiguities in statutes. With its repeal, courts are now tasked with independently resolving statutory ambiguities. According to the National Law Review, this ruling massively undermines the current regulatory state and opens the door to challenging rules related to “environmental guidance documents and policies…involving air and water quality, climate change, and other environmental and public health policies.”

Ohio v. EPA

In a shadow docket decision handed down last term, the Supreme Court halted an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effort to reduce smog-forming emissions. The EPA employed a “good neighbor” rule in an attempt to govern pollution crossing state borders and reduce air pollution from power plants and industrial facilities. Several states challenged this policy in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, halted the rule and sent the case back to the D.C. Circuit Court. After the decision, senior vice president of the group Earthjustice Sam Sankar cautioned that “the ruling could lead to more industry challenges to new environmental rules.”

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy 

This ruling limited the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to seek penalties against defendants for securities fraud. Much like the ruling in Loper Bright, the court removed power from federal agencies and placed it in the hands of judges. Joel Eisen, a law professor at the University of Richmond, noted that the case, “will undoubtedly hamper the ability of agencies to conduct enforcement that depends on civil penalties.” In an environmental context, this means it could be much harder for federal regulators and the EPA to bring their own enforcement cases against polluters and fossil fuel companies. 

Next Term

Navigating environmental law and regulations in the aftermath of the last Supreme Court term has proven a difficult challenge, and under the new Trump administration federal agencies like the EPA are facing more roadblocks than ever.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas

This case centers on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decision to license a nuclear waste storage facility in Andrews County, Texas. The Fifth Circuit Court recently sided with Texas against the facility, and now the NRC is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling. Former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stated, “The Fifth Circuit disturbed the Commission’s authority to safely regulate nuclear materials by issuing such licenses- an authority that the Commission has exercised for more than 40 years.” A ruling against the NRC would further erode federal agencies’ ability to regulate environmental and public safety. 

San Francisco v. EPA

This upcoming case could have major implications for the Clean Water Act and the regulatory power of the EPA. The case began after the EPA filed a civil complaint against the City and County of San Francisco for Clear Water Act violation. According to the EPA, “each year since 2016, San Francisco has discharged more than 1.8 billion gallons of untreated sewage from its combined sewer systems into creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the Pacific Ocean.” San Francisco has sided with fossil fuel interests to fight against this complaint. The major question at hand is whether the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to impose generic prohibitions in permitting for water quality standards, or if they must identify specific limits. If the Supreme Court sides with San Francisco, it could hamper the EPA and other federal agencies’ ability to regulate pollution and waste management. 

Seven Country Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County

Seven Country Infrastructure could have the biggest implications for environmental law and policy. Following several rulings that weakened the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, the Supreme Court is now set to reconsider the scope of the  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Passed in 1970, this act requires “federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions.” Petitioners in this case argue that agencies should only evaluate environmental effects directly within their regulatory scope, rather than considering broader climate and ecological consequences. This case could provide the Court with the bandwidth to limit how federal agencies consider and measure the environmental and climate change impacts of development projects. 

Navigating environmental law and regulations in the aftermath of the last Supreme Court term has proven a difficult challenge, and under the new Trump administration federal agencies like the EPA are facing more roadblocks than ever. The cases of this upcoming term could shift the legal landscape even further away from environmental protections. Some federal and circuit courts have served as temporary barriers to this deregulatory shift, yet the Supreme Court has demonstrated that precedent and long-established legal frameworks no longer hold the influence they once did. If the Supreme Court continues to reshape the balance of regulatory power, agencies and organizations that use the law to advocate for the environment may have to quickly adapt their approach.