By Noah Rothman
Monday, June 20, 2022
New York Times reporter Coral Davenport has
uncovered the existence of the Constitution’s first article, and she appears to
be scandalized by it.
In her latest dispatch, which highlights the “Republican
drive to tilt courts against climate action,” Davenport chronicles the efforts
of conservative lawyers and right-leaning elected officials to test the
legality of climate-related regulations. Their intention is to rein in the
bureaucracy—“what they call the administrative state,” the reporter writes of
the plaintiffs in one such case—where the bureaucracy is acting in ways that
are not authorized by Congress.
“But Congress has barely addressed the issue of climate
change,” Davenport remarked. For decades, Congress has “delegated authority” to
the executive branch and its “specialists,” who can “respond quickly to
changing science, particularly when Capitol Hill is gridlocked.” In one case
that receives particular attention in Davenport’s article, the Courts have been
asked to decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency can assume for
itself the authority to shut down an entire sector of the power-generation
industry. Conservatives think the answer is no.
Indeed, conservative legal activists could not have made
a plainer case against the administrative state’s overreach than this. The
legislature’s lethargy on climate change or any other exigency does not give
the executive branch license to usurp its authority. Davenport’s use of
“delegate” in this context also ballasts the right’s argument against bureaucratic
bloat because Congress is obliged to be a jealous steward of its
authority—whether the institution’s members like it or not.
The “nondelegation doctrine” and the havoc it could
produce if it were applied to environmental regulations is what keeps Supreme
Court experts “up at night,” according to UC Berkley Law Professor Dan Farber. Though it is rarely
applied, this doctrine recently made an appearance in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s
January concurrence to a ruling striking down the administration’s vaccination
and testing mandates for large businesses.
Nor is the right’s campaign particularly new.
Environmental regulations that do not enjoy congressional authorization and
that impose an unfair cost burden on private industry have been on thin ice for
years. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down an EPA rule that would have compelled power-generating
firms to absorb hundreds of millions of dollars in new costs. In 2014,
the courts took a dim view of regulatory efforts to ban
the use of lead in bullets and fishing tackle, which would have made both far
more expensive (some have speculated that this, not environmental preservation,
was the point of that particular regulation). In 2015, the EPA lost again after it sought to expand its
jurisdiction over “navigable waterways” to include minor tributaries to those
waterways, effectively making the agency the final arbiter over what can and
cannot be built on ground that is or may one day become wet.
Davenport’s attempt to demonize the right’s effort to
drag Congress back into the process of legislating isn’t especially subtle. The
conservative legal movement challenging climate-related rules is characterized
by its “aggressive nature.” One progressive activist called the banality of
right-wing lawyers arguing before Republican-appointed judges a “pincer move.”
And worst of all, these conservatives probably voted for Donald Trump. After
all, the “plaintiffs are supported by the same network of conservative donors
who helped former President Donald J. Trump place more than 200 federal
judges.” Much of the remainder of the article is devoted to informing readers
of the nexus between conservative legal organizations, such as the Federalist
Society, and the judges they quite openly promote.
There is nothing remarkable about any of this, save the
breathlessness with which it has been reported in the Times. The
flimsiness of the case for these sweeping and burdensome regulations is made
plain by Davenport’s failure to include arguments in favor of their
constitutionality as much as their necessity. The reporter closes her piece by
warning that the courts have their sites set on two critical powers assumed by
the administrative state. The judiciary is set to rule on the legality of the
way the federal government calculates the “real-life cost” of climate change
and a regulation that limits tailpipe emissions, which is “designed to cut auto
pollution by compelling automakers to sell more electric vehicles.” The legality
of these regulations and the burdens they impose on private interests is
assumed.
If the courts block the administration’s climate cost
metrics, Davenport concludes, “they could strip the federal government of its
legal defense for almost any future climate policy.” Not if those regulations
were authorized by Congress, of course. But Congress cannot be trusted to act
with the alacrity and objectives this reporter prefers. The law’s general
indifference to Times’ readers’ emotional states might be the cruelest
injustice of them all.
No comments:
Post a Comment