The Supreme Court’s New Docket Spells Trouble for Public Health and Environmental Protections
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is not done chipping away at environmental protections and our nation’s bedrock environmental laws. You may recall that most recently, the Court overturned a 40-year precedent known as the Chevron Doctrine, which gave deference to federal agency efforts and expertise in issuing rules integral to public health, food safety, and climate change (read more here, and here). Within the past two years, the Court has limited the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon emissions from power plants (here, here) and narrowed the scope of its enforcement of the Clean Water Act (here, here). And now, the justices have three new environmental cases on their upcoming docket, so hold on to your hats. As the saying goes, “You ain’t seen nothin yet!”
Cases on the Docket
San Francisco v. EPA.
Here we see one of our nation’s most liberal cities taking issue with a federal water regulation -- EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The city claims it is not specific enough in setting limits on how much pollutions local wastewater treatment and collection facilities can send into the Pacific Ocean. And get this – the fossil fuel industry in supporting the city’s fight. Talk about strange bed fellows. (See here and also here on very recent attempts to have the city drop the case.)
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado.
The case involves the scope of an environmental review of a proposed oil rail line in Utah, an 88-mile Uinta Basin Railway that would carry waxy crude oil out of the Uinta Basin and eventually connect the fuel to refineries in the Gulf Coast. It questions whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. The case has the potential to further limit the scope of agency review of proposed projects required under NEPA. (Read more here.)
Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments -- also known as the Vape Case.
This case involves the FDA’s marketing denial orders for nicotine e-liquids with flavors with names that clearly appeal to kids. Names like “Jimmy the Juice Man Peachy Strawberry,” “Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies,” “Pink Lemonade,” “Iced Pineapple Express” and “Killer Kustard Blueberry.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the FDA’s marketing denial orders, and ruled in favor of the companies, finding the FDA acted unfairly in imposing last-minute requirements for e-cigarettes without notice and then rejecting companies’ applications. The FDA asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, arguing the Fifth Circuit’s decision “has far-reaching consequences for public health and threatens to undermine the Tobacco Control Act’s central objective of ‘ensuring that another generation of Americans does not become addicted to nicotine and tobacco products.’” Eleven leading medical, public health and community organizations have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to reverse a decision by for certain flavored e-liquids.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas.
The case involves the federal government’s power to authorize temporary storage sites for spent nuclear fuel. As there is no permanent national repository site currently available, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved waste from around the country to be stored in an above-ground, privately owned facility in Texas’ Permian Basin. The case challenges a lower court ruling that struck down a federal license for the private company Interim Storage Partners to build a temporary facility for spent nuclear fuel in Texas’ Permian Basin.
Red Alert!
In addition to the cases already on the docket, the justices could decide to take up several pending requests to hear cases related to federal energy rules, climate change and public lands management. They include cases that could:
Allow EPA’s challengers to file lawsuits in more favorable courts
Quash climate liability lawsuits
Strike down a state’s authority to set stricter tailpipe emission rules that the federal government
Stop EPA’s rule limiting carbon emissions from existing coal- and new gas-fired power plants
Require more scrutiny of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules
Block offshore wind development along the Atlantic Seaboard
Revitalize the nondelegation doctrine, which bars Congress from handing too much authority to regulatory agencies like the EPA. [This would be a REALLY BIG DEAL].
Read more about these pending petitions here.
Bottom Line
The current cases and pending requests for SCOTUS review provide more opportunity for the conservative majority on the Court to flex their pro-industry and anti-regulatory muscles, further limiting the power of administrative agencies to issue rules and policies that protect public health and the environment. One might question whether these justices and the current SCOTUS have the public interest or private interests top of mind. Their decisions on these cases and petitions will be yet more evidence of an already worrisome trend.
That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!
If you enjoyed today’s post, please like it or share it with others. You can also support the work we do to shine a light on the politicization of science by becoming a paid subscriber!
If you want to share today’s post as a web page with your network, click this button:
If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or want to drop us a line - send it all to scilightsubstack@gmail.com