Blog

The following post provides detailed analysis of the recent Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Supreme Court decision. It was originally posted to The George Washington Law Review and is  cross-posted with permission.  The current Supreme Court is not a friend of the administrative state. A majority of its members seem to take particular umbrage at administration of the regulatory programs […]

In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the federal government’s power to protect wetlands. The Court required “Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the Power of government over private property.”

On May 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-awaited decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is the Supreme Court’s fourth foray over several decades into what count as protected “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act. This language provides the key jurisdictional hook for all important federal powers under the Act.

We’ve already started to hear claims that the Biden power plant rule falls under the major questions doctrine, which the U.S. Supreme Court used to strike down former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Are those claims plausible?

Although the U.S. Constitution does not say so directly, the U.S. Supreme Court has said there are implied limits on state regulations that interfere with interstate commerce. This is known as the dormant commerce clause doctrine. State clean energy laws have been bedeviled by challenges based on this doctrine. The Supreme Court has just made it easier for states to fend off those claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to decide a case that could bring on a major weakening of the laws that the United States Congress has put into place to protect public health, safety, and the environment. The Chevron doctrine, as it's known, has never been popular with the regulated industries and conservative think tanks that want to limit the power of federal agencies.

On May 1, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on whether the U.S. Department of Commerce has the authority to require fishermen to allow inspectors on board. At stake is the ability of agencies to write regulations that reasonably interpret laws even when they are ambiguous.   

Earlier this year, the Richmond Times Dispatch reported that Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) scientists are working to reduce the daily flow of cancer-causing PCBs into the James River and keep the commonwealth's water clean and safe to drink.

Six years ago, Smithsonian Magazine was among those decrying the death of public intellectuals (“the egghead is dead”). Where are today’s Ralph Waldo Emersons or James Baldwins or Susan Sontags, they mourned. The article went on to offer a fascinating insight. History shows that “public intellectuals always emerged when the country was sharply divided: during the Civil War, the Vietnam War, the fights for civil rights and women’s rights.” In this moment of ever-deepening divide, it gives me great pleasure to announce that the Center for Progressive Reform welcomes five prominent academics to our network. The toll for the death of expertise may have been premature; long live public intellectuals!