Results tagged “supreme court” from PlanetGreen.org

Update: Clean Power Remand Cert. Denied

|
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a new list of orders in which it denied certiorari review, without explanation, to the case of Michigan v. EPA, which concerned whether the Agency unlawfully refused to consider costs in the promulgation of its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards pursuant to the Clean Air Act. It had already heard the case once last year, ruling in favor of Michigan and other industry petitioners, but sent the matter back to the D.C. Circuit without explicitly vacating the MATS.

The Circuit, led by Judge (and future Justice) Garland, accordingly allowed the MATS to remain enforceable until new guidelines were issued by the EPA. Michigan accordingly took the matter to Chief Justice John Roberts, who denied their indignant stay application of his own accord without referring the matter to conference. The ensuing full petition was also rejected in a one-line order on Monday - this is most important because it signals that no four Justices thought Michigan's position was meritorious enough to warrant a hearing, a fact that could bode well for the rest of the Clean Power Plan when West Virginia v. EPA is heard at the beginning of next Term.

This could also indicates a shift in the Court's perception of equitable relief. Since the petitioners' demands in the first Michigan fall under the purview of traditional equity rules, the courts are given greater latitude to consider the greater good when deciding on these claims. The D.C. Circuit exercised that chancery jurisdiction in this case, concluding that the benefits to citizens' health and welfare - up to 11,000 instances of premature mortality prevented annually, as well as 4,700 cardiac emergencies and 250,000 instances of respiratory illness every year - outweighed the burden that regulatory compliance places on the energy and manufacturing industries. As was said in 1947, "a strong showing is required, both of inadequacy of the prescribed procedure and impending harm, to permit short-circuiting of the administrative process," and the petitioners failed to prove that any impending harm caused by the case would adversely impact them. Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752. By allowing that determination of the D.C. Circuit to stand, the Supreme Court renewed what the respondents called the tribunal's "longstanding reluctance to displace traditional equitable authority absent the 'clearest command' or an inescapable inference' to the contrary." (Citation omitted). In recent years, such deference to administrative discretion and the principles of equity has been rare, but as this denial shows, the reversal of that trend could be imminent.

The mere denial of a cert. petition is rarely treated with the same weight as a full decision, and even this acknowledgement of citizens' interests and the EPA's authority cannot fully erase the damage created by the Michigan precedent. However, the changing Court and the changing political climate inevitably move American jurisprudence forward, and we at PlanetGreen believe that someday the natural world will receive the respect from the judiciary that Justice Douglas once famously declared it deserved:

"So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes -- fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water -- whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger -- must be able to speak for the values which the river represents, and which are threatened with destruction." Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).

Our earlier coverage of this case, both a preliminary statement of the issues and a personal perspective.

Eight Men In - Garland Stonewalled By Reckless Republicans

|
herblockcp.jpgJust yesterday, President Obama nominated appeals judge Merrick Garland, currently of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. This nomination, made while the Court was on break, immediately rekindled debate over whether a lame-duck President should be allowed to appoint candidates of his choice to the Court. Ironically, though, while Judge Garland has been publicly cast as an unpredictable centrist, it is the GOP's politicians who have done the majority of the swing-voting in this situation: first supporting him and praising his qualifications for years, then vowing to keep him off this country's highest bench at all costs.

However, in refusing to even consider Judge Garland, these conservatives have failed to realize that they could be worsening their own party's position. With each new contest, it seems increasingly unavoidable that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. For the Republicans, Donald Trump is likely unstoppable, having already aggregated 673 out of 1,237 necessary delegates (that's a 119-delegate lead over both his opponents combined). In all probability, however, the billionaire insurgent will perform poorly in the general election, forcing the hard-liners to confirm a potential Justice named by a Democrat. And if they succeed in compelling Obama to withdraw Garland's name, they could face an even more liberal appointee.

Another misconception about this development is that Democrats should be unhappy with the choice simply because he was not the farthest-left candidate on the short list. To be sure, his experience as a federal prosecutor in many high-profile domestic terrorism cases may have helped to shape his views on criminal procedure, which would probably be solidly to the right of the Court's current liberal wing. However, his record on the D.C. Circuit still evinces a more progressive viewpoint on those issues than that of Sri Srinivasan, who has never overturned a single criminal conviction.

In labor law cases, Judge Garland has consistently upheld the NLRB's decisions and safeguarded the liberties of workers and the right to collective bargaining. His environmental record shows a similar deference to administrative rulemaking, even when taking these stands entails creating disparities between circuits or even weakening the effect of a deleterious Supreme Court decision. This regard for substantial justice could only benefit the Court and the nation.

In a final note, the Republicans regularly attribute to their own party a profound concern about governmental overreach and a deep belief in the separation of powers, but their refusal to perform a necessary part of the political process belies their rhetoric. In this polarized climate, both parties would do well to heed Justice Frankfurter's comments on the comparatively minimal political gridlock existing in 1952: "It would stultify one's faith in our people to entertain even a momentary fear that the patriotism and the wisdom of the President and the Congress, as well as the long view of the immediate parties in interest, will not find ready accommodation for differences on matters which, however close to their concern and however intrinsically important, are overshadowed by the awesome issues which confront the world." (Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579). Or they could start by simply acknowledging that, as Justice Jackson (who once occupied the now-vacant S.C. seat) once said, "Process which is a mere gesture is not due process." (Mullane v. Hanover, 339 U.S. 306).

Reversed and Remanded - and Reversed

|
Last year, in Michigan v. EPA (14-46, 576 U.S. 14), the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA incorrectly neglected to thoroughly consider the economic costs of its lifesaving Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). Expanding on that ruling, the Court deviated from its usual procedure and granted an application to stay enforcement of Obama's Clean Power Plant just last month.

Now, just yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts unexpectedly denied Michigan's request to stay enforcement of the MATS. After the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Michigan, the cause was remanded to the D.C. Circuit, which (in the petitioners' words) "refused to vacate the unauthorized Rule, and instead left it in place with the effect of binding law." On Thursday, one of the S.C.'s most conservative members declined to take any action on that.

This case is important to the entire legal and environmental community, but it is also personally relevant to me. Ever since the certiorari petition was filed in Michigan, I had followed that case intently, and when it was granted I attempted to write and file an amicus curiae brief in support of the respondents. I was fourteen years old at the time, as enthusiastic as I was inexperienced and still more than a decade away from satisfying the S.C.'s bar admission requirements. My chances of procuring consent to file the brief were exceedingly slim.

The chances of everything that happened next were even slimmer.

I had listened to the recordings of almost every Supreme Court oral argument for years, but my familiarity with the cases and advocates only made it more surreal when I made one last phone call and, much to my surprise, found myself talking to Roman Martinez about the bar-admission situation. Far from dismissing my brief, as I fully expected, he took the time out to write me over the course of the next days, forward my pleading to Solicitor General Verrilli, and even invite me to attend the hearing.

The respondents' argument, on March 25th of 2015, was among the most forceful and engaging presentations I have read or listened to. General Verrilli opened for the EPA, carefully navigating hostile questions from Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy before launching into an accessible, cohesive explanation of the rules' background and effects in a manner strongly reminiscent of Louis Brandeis' renowned Muller v. Oregon (208 U.S. 412 (1908)) brief. To conclude, he outlined the EPA standard for reasonable administrative action, and deftly dealt with the preclusion undertones B&B v. Hargis had introduced. Then Paul Smith took over, speaking for industries supporting the regulations. He dealt mainly with the more technical aspects of the EPA's studies before subtly and effectively invoking the mootness question by describing how the majority of emissions sources had already implemented the MATS.

The decision in the case did not come down until June 29th, the last day of the Term. The D.C. Circuit's earlier ruling in favor of the EPA was reversed and remanded without vacatur 5-4, the late Justice Scalia speaking for the majority. The Circuit, pursuant to that disposition of the case, allowed the MATS to remain in force until the Agency was able to update them taking costs into consideration. Subsequently, Michigan et al. sought this stay of the rules, employing the preclusion and mootness angles to make their claims appear urgent. These arguments, however, were just sanctioned by Roberts in his denial of their application, unexpectedly strengthening administrative discretion instead of weakening it further.

Through all the twists and turns of this case, from the excitement of a pending litigation to the disappointment of what appeared to be final defeat and, now, to Roberts' surprising decision to render the earlier opinion unenforceable, I remain extremely grateful to everyone at the Department of Justice, and especially to General Verrilli and Mr. Martinez, who allowed me to feel like a small part of this unforgettable ride. Thank you for the incredible experience I call my first case.

K letter.png(Katrianna posted the text on this entry and left out this image, so I went maverick on her and added it. -Her big sister)

On Certiorari With Michael Carvin

|
SC.jpgJust this month, the Supreme Court heard argument in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, (14-915), a high-profile case about whether or not "agency shop" arrangements between a labor union and a public-sector employer violate the First Amendment. This question has not been brought in front of the Court as a broad constitutional issue since 1977, when these bargains were adjudged permissible in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Education (431 U.S. 209) - and the legal landscape has undeniably shifted since then. The membership of the Court has changed entirely, and its interpretation of free speech has evolved almost as drastically.

The question presented in this new challenge is rather vague, partly because it is so precisely tailored to the circumstances of the cause. The decision, however, will definitely affect more than this individual dispute between an elementary-school teacher and the association she doesn't believe she should be forced to subsidize - so I tried to find out how the petitioners' main lawyer, Michael Carvin, envisions the legacy of their case.

Their brief gives us a fairly good idea of what they are specifically asking the Court to do. The surefooted style is the first thing that strikes you about Mr. Carvin's latest Supreme Court creation, which weaves punchy lines from familiar opinions such as Citizens United v. FEC (558 U.S. 310) and West Virginia v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624) in with a direct, uncomplicated argument. However, neither it nor the recent oral arguments provide much political perspective on the question or indicate the extent to which a reversal might impact other areas of labor law.

Therefore, I reached out to Mr. Carvin for answers to some of the questions that occurred to me while I was reading and listening to his positions. According to him, the vital element of this delicate constitutional equation is the government as the employer. Similar agreements between a union and a private corporation would be allowed, as would contracts requiring a worker to become a member of a specific union. Interestingly, though, he did not rule out the possibility that victory on his part could open the door to "yellow dog" conditions in public sector jobs (that is, contracts which prohibit union activity by employees, so named because early unions looked on signers as being "lower than yellow dogs"). He justified this by pointing out that both the S.C. and President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed that, in his words, "there is no constitutional right to collective bargaining with a public employer."

Both sides have legitimate concerns as to the application of the eventual ruling, and their worries are far from premature. The decision is unlikely to be rendered anytime before June, but its heritage as a precedent and the issues it deals with will continue to influence American politics and law for decades after that. Yet, as incontrovertibly important as the right to organize remains, the implications of forcing public workers to subsidize private interests of any kind could prove disastrous.

The Right to Breathe - Clean Air Litigation Reaches the Supreme Court

|
    The litigation of Michigan et al. v. EPA was recently granted a hearing in the Supreme Court. The case involves the EPA's decision to classify power plants as "emissions sources" under 42 U.S.C. 7412, which gives the agency general discretion to regulate pollution. Petitioners - Michigan, associated states, and several private parties - contend that the EPA's classification is "unreasonable."
    In a sentence, the question before the Court is: "Does the government have the right to protect its citizens against a recognized threat to their health and safety?" The legal reasoning supporting the EPA revolves around the following points:
    1. If a law is valid, then it can "reasonably" be enforced;
    2. Every citizen has a right to breathe clean air;
    3. Government has a right to regulate what it owns;
    4. Therefore, a reversal would encroach on Congressional powers; and
    5. Air quality is an interstate, and so federal, issue.

I. GENERAL RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THE LAW
    The limits and extent of the power of federal and state agencies to regulate subordinate governmental and private practices is one of the oldest and most controversial subjects to come before that Court. In 1819 John Marshall first enunciated the essential right of the United States to enforce its valid and reasonable laws without interference: "The sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people." M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316. This reasoning was specifically reaffirmed in Federal Land Bank v. Bismark Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95 (1941), Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151 (1886), and United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174 (1944).
    In the 1825 litigation Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, Marshall established the principle that this authority is not lost in the event that Congress delegates a function over which it has control to another agency. "A general provision," he wrote in that case, "may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions to fill up the details." Also, Willson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co., 2 Pet. 245 (1829), introduced a new grounds on which a state could regulate a subject - substantial benefits to citizens' health and property.
    As time went on the government's right to provide for the public welfare and enforce its statutes was clarified even more extensively. In Brown v. Maryland, a case involving another dispute between federal and state authorities, it was held per Chief Justice Marshall:"It has been observed that the powers remaining with the states may be so exercised as to come in conflict with those vested in Congress. When this happens, that which is not supreme must yield to that which is supreme. This great and universal truth is inseparable from the nature of things, and the Constitution has applied it to the often interfering powers of the general and state governments, as a vital principle of perpetual operation. It results necessarily from this principle that the... power of the states must have some limits. It cannot reach and restrain the action of the national government within its proper sphere."  25 U.S. 419 (1827). In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Corp., it was held that "no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted... to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power." 315 U.S. 110 (1942). In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), confirms this doctrine by holding that a federal employee cannot be prosecuted by a state for an offense committed as a necessary part of his job.
    In United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53 (1913), the Court, per Justice Lurton, concluded that Chandler-Dunbar could not own the riverbed of a navigable stream, seeing as Congress had been granted the exclusive right to control such waterways, despite the company's claim to have title to the land surrounding it. A similar conclusion was reached in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936), which upheld an act of Congress establishing the TVA as a "necessary and proper" exercise of the duties delegated to the legislature.
    In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt's Executive Order 8773 on the seizure of the North American Aviation Co. plant at Inglewood, California, as well, was necessitated by a protracted labor dispute in which attempts at arbitration had failed, and the imminence of World War II made the continued manufacture of airplanes for the national defense crucial. This use of administrative dominance was held to be constitutional.

    The United States' prerogative to enforce its laws without intervention from lower authorities has also proved quite powerful in cases less specific to the circumstances of this litigation. It has allowed a federal district court hearing a diversity case to disregard the decision of a State Supreme Court. Terry v. Sharon, 131 U.S. 40 (1889). It has allowed another district court to issue valid injunctions in cases where it could not hold  technical in personam jurisdiction over the defendants. In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895). It has allowed the government itself to hold that a state has no title to unclaimed lands within its borders, if the U.S. has already formulated plans for the land's use. United States v. Gratiot, 39 U.S. 526 (1840). It has allowed a federal agency to impose penalties on a farmer for growing more wheat than it deemed advisable, even though the wheat was consumed at his home and never entered commerce of any sort. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111. It has allowed Congress' antitrust statutes to reach beyond their strict jurisdiction over interstate commerce. United States v. Women's Sportswear Mfg. Ass'n, 336 U.S. 460 (1949). It has even allowed an employee of the government to kill a man without standing trial in the state courts, if his occupation obligates him to do so. In re Neagle, supra. It would follow that the privilege sanctioning all these actions would likely cover measures to ban certain pollutants from the air.
    Throughout the continuous controversies arising on the subject of alleged federal overreaching into state or personal matters, the Court has consistently recognized that Congress, the President, and other appropriate agencies have a core function of ensuring the stability and welfare of the nation as a whole. As the Court opined per the second Justice Rutledge, "a strong showing is required, both of inadequacy of the prescribed procedure and impending harm, to permit short-circuiting of the administrative process." Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752 (1947). The consequences of a ruling controverting this would be far-reaching and adverse.

II. THE SOCIAL RIGHT TO HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
    Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, in his opinion for the Court in the 1937 case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, sustained in ringing words a universal right to certain social liberties, which, although not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, are still vital: "The Constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty. Liberty in each of its phases has a history and a connotation. But the liberty safeguarded is liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people. Liberty under the Constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process." 300 U.S. 379.
    Though the ruling in Parrish was revolutionary due to its dramatic reversal of earlier cases, the concept expounded was an old and well-known one to the Court that extended its meaning. It opined in Phalen v. Virginia that "the suppression of nuisances injurious to public health or morality is among the most important duties of government." 49 U.S. 163 (1850). It said in Hamilton v. Regents that "government... owes a duty to the people... to preserve itself in adequate strength to maintain peace and order and to assure the just enforcement of law." 293 U.S. 245 (1934). It wrote in Chicago B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire that "the guaranty of liberty does not... deny to government the power to provide restrictive safeguards. Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from the interests of the community." 219 U.S. 549 (1911). In Nebbia v. New York, it observed per Justice Roberts that "government cannot exist if the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his fellows." 291 U.S. 502 (1934). In Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), it called due process "the least frozen concept of our law... the least confined to history and the most absorptive of powerful social standards of a progressive society." In Cox v. New Hampshire, it proclaimed that "civil liberties, as guaranteed by the Constitution, imply the existence of an organized society maintaining public order without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of unrestrained abuses." 312 U.S. 569 (1941). Also, in Cantwell v. Connecticut, it unanimously agreed that "when clear and present danger of... immediate threat[s] to public safety, peace, or order appears, the power of the State to prevent or punish is obvious." 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
    Lastly, in the 1908 case of Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, the Court held that a contract with female laundry workers providing for a work day longer than ten hours was clearly unconscionable, despite the employers' contentions that the state's wages-and-hours statute violated their liberty to bargain freely with the laundresses for their labor. The reason for the ruling was plain: the employment conditions were obviously injurious to the women's health, and Oregon had a reasonable interest in protecting the welfare of its citizens. These citizens had contracted to work in dangerous circumstances; they had not been coerced to do so; yet holding them to these terms was an illicit travesty of their right to a safe, sanitary, and fair job.
    The citizens of this country who live near power plants have not voluntarily agreed to inhale poisonous substances, drink contaminated water, consume adulterated foods, or accept substandard quality of the natural elements around them. They have not signed away their rights to a salubrious lifestyle or clear blue sky. Yet, if the respondent EPA is deprived of the authority to enforce 42 U.S.C. §7412, these citizens will no longer enjoy those liberties. They will be exposed to countless compounds which are scientifically proven to be harmful and hazardous materials, some of which are linked to cancer, birth deformities, and other irreversible injuries. These are the risks which the EPA, a constitutionally authorized body, is charged with eliminating, and it is hardly an unreasonable encroachment on individual rights to maintain the collective interests of society in an uncontaminated and natural environment.

III. ALL U.S. AIRSPACE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
    By contending that the respondent's classification of power plants as sources of harmful emissions is "unreasonable," petitioners argue that the federal government does not have sufficient jurisdiction to regulate the quality of the air and, by extension, that they have the right to release substances into it. However, this claim is undermined by 49 U.S.C. §40103, which provides explicitly that "the United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States." (Emphasis supplied). This property is placed in the government's hands for vital reasons - to protect our skies for defense purposes, monitor meteorological conditions, maintain communications networks, deliver the mails, train and deploy the Air Force, and prevent aircraft accidents. The petitioners do not in any way challenge §40103. Rather, they are attempting to divest the United States of the ability to act pursuant to it.
    Petitioners cannot very easily claim that statutes regarding federal property "unreasonably" deprive them of any right. In fact, seeing as they are not directly injured by the government's management of its own territories, their standing to sue in this case is questionable. As Justice Pitney wrote for the Court:"Considerations of propriety, as well as long-established practice, demand that we refrain from passing upon the constitutionality of an act of Congress unless obliged to do so in the proper performance of our judicial function, when the question is raised by a party whose interests entitle him to raise it." Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 (1919). With that in mind, a reversal would allow petitioners to, firstly, encroach on federal property and, secondly, deprive the federal government of its power to make rules for itself on how to manage this property. As the Court said in Wickard v. Filburn, supra, "it is hardly lack of due process for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes" - or owns outright.

IV. A REVERSAL WOULD BE A USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION
    In its controversial decisions in countless issues over the course of several centuries, the Court has maintained its great reluctance to overreach by deciding issues beyond its proper jurisdiction. Throughout its long history, it has cautioned against its assumption of what it has deemed to be "function[s] never conferred upon it by the Constitution, and against the exercise of which the Court has steadily set its face from the beginning." Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911). In Williams v. Georgia it wrote that "if a fundamental constitutional right is not presented, we have no duty to act." 349 U.S. 375 (1955). In Griswold v. Connecticut, it cautioned the courts against acting as a "superlegislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation." 381 U.S. 479 (1965). In Currin v. Wallace, it wrote even more forthrightly about matters that should properly be left to Congressional discretion:"It is... the essence of the plenary power conferred that Congress may exercise its discretion in the use of the power. Congress may choose the commodities and places to which its regulation shall apply. Congress may consider and weigh relative situations and needs. Congress is not restricted by any technical requirement but may make limited applications and resort to tests so that it may have the benefit of experience in deciding upon the continuance or extension of a policy which under the Constitution it is free to adopt." 306 U.S. 1 (1939). Also, in Ferguson v. Skrupa, it maintained "the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, which are elected to pass laws." 372 U.S. 726 (1963).
    More specifically to the present case, it has also been wary of undue interference with the duties of administrative agencies. As Justice Douglas ascertained for a majority of the Court in Berman v. Parker, "when the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well nigh conclusive. In such cases, the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation." 348 U.S. 26 (1954). In Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council, it was held: "If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation. Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
    Furthermore, in Morton v. Ruiz, the Court also decided that "the power of an administrative agency to administer a congressionally created... program necessarily requires the formulation of policy and the making of rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress." 415 U.S. 199 (1974). In Field & Co. v. Clark, it held per Justice Harlan:"The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes or intends to make its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the lawmaking power, and must therefore be a subject of inquiry and determination outside of the halls of legislation." 143 U.S. 694 (1892). In the 1911 case United States v. Grimaud, it wrote per Justice Lamar:"From the beginning of the government, various acts have been passed conferring upon executive officers power to make rules and regulations - not for the government of their departments, but for administering the laws which did govern... When Congress had legislated and indicated its will, it could give to those who were to act under such general provisions "power to fill up the details" by the establishment of administrative rules and regulations." 220 U.S. 506. In West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utility Commission, it demarcated the boundaries of its judicial competence even more clearly: "This Court does not sit as a board of revision with power to review the action of administrative agencies upon grounds unrelated to the maintenance of constitutional immunities." 294 U.S. 63 (1935).
    In this case, by asking the Court to deprive the EPA of the authority to enforce federal laws in the way it sees fit, petitioners are asking for a blatant misappropriation of authority rightly belonging to Congress. Seeing as the airspace they seek unregulated use of is, as has been conclusively established above, federal property, there is no "constitutional immunity" at stake for the Court to preserve by entering a reversal here.

V. APPLICABILITY OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
    The Commerce Clause is another source of the EPA's authority to regulate air emissions in the way it sees fit. The statute at the heart of the present controversy, 42 U.S.C. §7410(a)(2)(D)(i), provides in part that it is illegal for a state to "interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State... to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility." This provision and the regulations made pursuant to it do not infringe on petitioners' constitutional rights in any way, and are therefore "reasonable."
    The contention that the petitioners are not specifically engaged in "commerce between the several states" is disposed of by the Court's past rulings. In Gibbons v. Ogden, for example, a transportation trust was held to be an interstate operation, despite the fact that it only had a monopoly on steamboat routes in New York waters; in his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall said of Congress' power over interstate commerce: "It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution... If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objects, is plenary as to those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, is vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government." 9 Wheat. 1 (1824). In Mondou, et al. v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., the Court decided per Justice Van Devanter that "the term 'commerce' comprehends more than the mere exchange of goods. It embraces commercial intercourse in all its branches." 223 U.S. 1 (1912). In the Minnesota Rate Cases, it set forth unanimously:"There is no room in our scheme of government for the assertion of state power in hostility to the authorized exercise of federal power. The authority of Congress extends to every part of interstate commerce, and to every instrumentality or agency by which it is carried on, and the full control by Congress of the subjects committed to its regulation is not to be denied or thwarted by the commingling of interstate and intrastate operations." 230 U.S. 352 (1913).
    Just last year, in a decision particularly apposite to the case at hand, the Court ruled on the case of EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). In that case, it was conclusively established that pollution is a decidedly interstate issue because gases, of nature, do not respect political boundaries:"Further complicating the problem, pollutants do not emerge from the smokestacks of an upwind State and uniformly migrate downwind. Some pollutants stay within the upwind States' borders, the wind carries to other downwind States, and some subset of that group drifts to States without air quality problems. 'The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth...' In crafting a solution to the problem of interstate air pollution, regulators must account for the vagaries of the wind."
    Undermining the EPA's right to do so would not only reverse the circuit court in this case, but countless rulings of the Court over the course of the two hundred and twenty-six years it has sat as this nation's highest tribunal.

Tags

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.