As I understand it, the Court wasn’t ruling on the policy merits of the climate regulations. They simply said that regulations that eliminate and radically alter whole industries have to be explicitly authorized by a statute passed by congress. The policy merits aren’t (and shouldn’t be) within the Court’s purview when evaluating existing law.
That's true that they weren't ruling on the merits of the actual policy, but it does seem to me like a making a decision that the policy is ultra vires the jurisdiction of the EPA, is an unnecessarily literal interpretation of the law. I know the US doesn't have doctrines like POGG, but given that passing a cap-and-trade has been an uphill battle in congress, saying that a statute will get passed seems unlikely. I think the question that comes out of this decision as well is what the power of the EPA under the Clean Air Act actually is on a federal level, if it's not to create national standards. But I agree that the Court lacks the expertise to rule on the merits of a policy like this, I just think that the strict reading of the provision in the Clean Air Act was shortsighted in this case.
As I understand it, the Court wasn’t ruling on the policy merits of the climate regulations. They simply said that regulations that eliminate and radically alter whole industries have to be explicitly authorized by a statute passed by congress. The policy merits aren’t (and shouldn’t be) within the Court’s purview when evaluating existing law.
That's true that they weren't ruling on the merits of the actual policy, but it does seem to me like a making a decision that the policy is ultra vires the jurisdiction of the EPA, is an unnecessarily literal interpretation of the law. I know the US doesn't have doctrines like POGG, but given that passing a cap-and-trade has been an uphill battle in congress, saying that a statute will get passed seems unlikely. I think the question that comes out of this decision as well is what the power of the EPA under the Clean Air Act actually is on a federal level, if it's not to create national standards. But I agree that the Court lacks the expertise to rule on the merits of a policy like this, I just think that the strict reading of the provision in the Clean Air Act was shortsighted in this case.