The Environment: Supreme Court

Hayley Bilik
Dr. Elizabeth S. Smith
PSC-101-05 American Government
February 6, 2017
The Environment: Supreme Court The Supreme Court is the highest judicial court in the United States, and its purpose is to ensure that the Constitution is followed correctly. The Court consists of nine justices, and has traditionally achieved higher approval ratings from the public as opposed to the President and Congress. Justices are selected through a vigorous system, combining factors such as merit, alignment with the current president’s ideals, recompense, and representation of diverse groups that the current president believes deserves representation. In order for a case to even be heard by the Court it must go through a specific vetting process. A writ
Post decision of a case, Supreme Court justices engage in writing their respective opinions, which, due to the lasting influence, is often regarded as the “lasting legacy of the case” (Barbour and Wright 2015, 303). Through these opinion writings, justices are able to express their agreement or disagreement with the majority ruling. President Trump has the opportunity to appoint his own nominee for the Supreme Court, allowing for him to pick someone whose political ideals align with his own, enabling him to further his political agenda. His nominee, Neil Gorsuch, upholds Trump’s conservative ideologies, including his stance on environmental issues (need to quantify the statement). His addition would put Republican justices at a 5:4 majority, greatly increasing their potential for swaying decisions in favor of conservative ideals. Trump himself could be classified as a skeptic of climate change, and therefore an avid advocator for reduced climate change research and action (Mantel 2017). Reviewing recent Supreme Court cases regarding our changing climate can provide an interesting contrast as the Supreme
In particular he discussed the need to address carbon emissions from both newly-constructed and preexisting power plants. Following this declaration, the Supreme Court seemed to condone increasing federal involvement within the usual realm of state-control, specifically where states have appeared to neglect their duties. The challenge is finding the balance between increased federal control while still preserving some semblance of states’ traditional regulatory controls. The election of Trump may sway such responsibilities back into state control, as traditionally conservatives are in favor of decreased federal involvement in favor of increased state authority. The Supreme Court in the 2014 case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA ruled against the EPA, indicating a lack of support in terms of the EPA’s efforts to regulate “polluters that had not been historically subject to CAA requirements.” (Mukerjee 2015, 350). The EPA’s attacks on such groups threatens growth of the national economy, and also indicates a broader trend of the EPA traveling through federal channels rather than the traditional regulation under the Clean Air Act via the states. This change is a direct reflection of the growing seriousness of environmental issues, making issues of regulation more time sensitive as