Supreme Court Limits Federal Regulatory Power

In a major setback for the federal government, the Supreme Court has overturned a decades-old precedent that allowed agencies to broadly regulate industries based on potential risks. The decision could have significant implications for environmental protection and other areas where federal agencies rely on broad authority to regulate.

The Supreme Court has dealt a major blow to the Biden administration's regulatory agenda, overturning a 40-year-old precedent that made it easier for the federal government to regulate industries based on potential risks.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overstepped its authority when it issued a rule limiting mercury emissions from power plants. The Court held that the EPA's rule was based on an impermissible "end-of-the-pipe" approach, which focuses on regulating individual sources of pollution rather than addressing the problem at its source.

Supreme Court Limits Federal Regulatory Power

The Court's decision is a significant victory for industry groups that have long argued that the EPA and other federal agencies have been overreaching in their regulatory authority. The decision could also make it more difficult for the federal government to regulate other areas, such as public health, worker safety, and consumer protection.

The case stems from a rule issued by the EPA in 2011 that set limits on mercury emissions from power plants. The EPA estimated that the rule would prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths per year and provide billions of dollars in health benefits.

However, industry groups challenged the rule, arguing that the EPA lacked the authority to regulate mercury emissions under the Clean Air Act. The industry groups argued that the EPA could only regulate mercury if it posed a "significant risk" to public health, and they claimed that the EPA had not made such a showing.

The Obama administration defended the rule, arguing that the EPA had the authority to regulate mercury based on its potential risks. The administration also argued that the rule was necessary to protect public health.

The Supreme Court sided with the industry groups, holding that the EPA's rule was based on an impermissible "end-of-the-pipe" approach. The Court held that the EPA could only regulate mercury if it posed a "significant risk" to public health and that the EPA had not made such a showing.

The Court's decision is a major setback for the Biden administration, which has made environmental protection a top priority. The decision could also make it more difficult for the federal government to regulate other areas, such as public health, worker safety, and consumer protection.

The decision is likely to have a significant impact on the EPA's ability to regulate other pollutants, such as air pollution and water pollution. It could also make it more difficult for the agency to regulate new technologies, such as nanomaterials and genetically modified organisms.

The decision is a victory for industry groups that have long argued that the EPA has been overreaching in its regulatory authority. The decision could also lead to a wave of new lawsuits challenging federal regulations.

The Supreme Court's decision is a major setback for the federal government's ability to regulate industries based on potential risks. The decision could have significant implications for environmental protection and other areas where federal agencies rely on broad authority to regulate.