In brief
The Supreme Court's recent decisions may indicate a pivotal turn in favor of regulatory efforts against climate change.
The conservative-majority Supreme Court has traditionally opposed numerous environmental regulations, but recent court rulings have sparked speculation about a possible change in direction. On Wednesday, the justices opted not to block the Environmental Protection Agency's (E.P.A.) new mandate requiring power plants to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which could see them capturing up to 90 percent of such emissions by 2032. This decision is part of a broader set of rulings, where the court also declined to intervene against other E.P.A. rules focused on mercury and methane emissions earlier this month.These rulings may herald a significant departure from the court’s previous approach, particularly following its earlier decision this year to halt the E.P.A.'s "good neighbor plan," which aimed at mitigating air pollution that crosses state lines. Critics deemed that emergency intervention as an inappropriate use of the court's authority, labeling the decision-making process a "shadow docket" for its lack of transparency.Richard Lazarus, a Harvard environmental law expert, remarked that the recent decisions might represent a critical turning point, reminiscent of the court's earlier blockage of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan eight years ago. As the E.P.A. embarks on its efforts to enforce stricter regulations on emissions, many are keenly observing whether these rulings signal a newfound openness on the part of the Supreme Court towards the enforcement of environmental protections.
