On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. In it, the conservative majority held that Congress, by means of section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, did not grant the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation-shifting approach that the agency took in the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. As such, the decision has severely hampered federal agencies’ (and the Biden administration’s) ability to combat climate change at a time when concentrations of fossil fuel pollution continue to rise to record highs.
In the WV v. EPA decision, Chief Justice Roberts relied specifically on a rarely invoked legal theory called the “major questions doctrine” (MQD) to underlie the court’s polarizing decision. Conservatives often argue that the MQD is a valuable tool to prevent federal agencies from carrying out their own policy making mandates. Progressives counter that, in reality, the doctrine—which is frequently advanced by industry and ideological extremists—gives judges the power to curtail agency discretion, discard important regulations, and hamstring the government’s ability to respond to myriad societal problems. All agree, however, that the decision has diminished the number of available tools in the federal government’s toolbox needed to address climate change in an immediate and sweeping manner.
In the wake of this blow to the federal government’s ability to combat the climate crisis, multidirectional efforts are intensifying at all levels to address climate change across the country. States and local governments are pushing forward with plans to decarbonize their economies by, for example, investing in electric vehicle networks and charging stations. Recently, Climate Mayors, a bipartisan coalition of nearly 500 mayors, and C40 Cities, a network of mayors of nearly 100 cities, released a guide to help local leaders understand the federal funding and benefits available to them to tackle climate change.
Fundamentally, Congress has begun to act on climate via its recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the largest and most aggressive investment in climate action in U.S. history. The bill will invest $369 billion in climate solutions and environmental justice initiatives and will create high-paying union jobs in many hard-hit energy communities like West Virginia. It will also address dual environmental and societal inequities by, for example, permanently restoring the tax on coal mining in order to fund the federal Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.
On an individual level, young people, climate scientists, congressional staffers—even rock climbers and snowboarders—are continuing to push the federal government, states and cities, and polluting corporations to make meaningful changes to address the climate crisis. Their actions are clearly a direct rebuke of the majority’s decision in WV v. EPA.
As an example, despite the Inflation Reduction Act’s essential investments into clean energy projects, grassroots groups are fighting back against several provisions of the bill that were intended to win Senator Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) support. These provisions would further entrench fossil fuel dependence and disproportionately afflict poor Black and Brown communities with toxic pollution—communities that are already overburdened by a proliferation of harmful chemicals and particulate matter.
Given the stakes at hand, and the uncertain political and economic landscape that played out in the recent midterm elections, folks on both ends of the political spectrum agree that the implications of WV v. EPA will be felt for decades to come. As the Supreme Court has increasingly come to be viewed as dangerously politicized and weary of what is perceived by some as agency overreach, efforts to combat climate change will no doubt continue to be multidirectional, with established entities, community organizers, and everyday citizens taking matters into their own hands.
