Supreme Court makes major decisions on climate and immigration

Thursday's Supreme Court's ability to combat climate change by the Environmental Protection AgencyHas ruled onto suppress. A federal-level climate change initiative in the United States, it is putting more pressure on Congress to act to reduce global warming emissions.

However, widespread action from Congress is unlikely. Parliamentary Democrats are caught up in difficult negotiations on the climate and clean energy bill , with Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia having a clear end for months. I couldn't see it.

It is unclear whether negotiations on clean energy tax credits and other emission reduction program packages will have consequences.

And, without both a large investment in clean energy and strong regulations on emission reductions by the EPA, Biden is unlikely to meet its climate goals, an independent analysis. Indicated by.

In a statement Wednesday, Senate leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday's Supreme Court ruling "further that the Democratic Party will soon pass meaningful legislation to deal with the climate crisis. It will be indispensable. "

Judge Elena Kagan, who wrote for the opposition, ruled that the Supreme Court restricted the capabilities of the EPA. Later, he sounded a warning about global warming. Widely regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants.  

She criticized the majority's support that Congress did not allow agents to act. "That's what we did when Congress broadly approved choosing the best emission reduction system for power plants," she said. 

"The Clean Power Plan is included in the EPA's wheelhouse and fits perfectly," she said. 

"The court appoints climate policy decision makers, not parliaments or specialized institutions," Kagan said. 

"I can't think of anything more scary," she concludes. 

Judge John Roberts said in favor of the majority, "advising skepticism about the EPA's allegations as a precedent," and the law "a generational change approach." Empowers us to devise an upper limit on carbon emissions based on. " 

Roberts said limiting carbon dioxide emissions to levels that would force a nationwide transition from the use of coal is "wise" to the "crisis". "It could be a solution, he said. Day. "  

Neil -Judge Gorsuch emphasized in another document the court's move to limit the power of agents who believe they are not responsible to public authorities. 

"We all agree that government agencies have an important role to play in modern nations, but the public and their representatives should make meaningful statements. You wouldn't want to give up the Republic's promise to be. The law governing them " Gorsuch wrote.

West Virginia Governor Jim Justice says has curtailed EPA's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. Celebrated the Supreme Court's decision on Thursday.

" Instead, the will of people all over the United States. The House of Representatives, officially elected to represent, can make a legitimate statement regarding balancing our desire for cleanliness. Needs energy and the security it provides to us. "The environment," he added.

Justice is one of the few states in the country where his state "must be approved by a legislature vote before all governmental regulations come into force," as does the federal government. Model.

"This ruling will have a positive impact on our country for generations to come. We are proud that West Virginia was a leader in this groundbreaking case. I think, "he said.

Thursday's Supreme Courtcurtailed the EPA's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. This is a defeat for the Biden administration's attempt to reduce emissions at the moment scientists are warning about the acceleration of global warming.

In addition, courts have generally reduced the authority of government agencies by calling on the so-called "major question" principle. This is a ruling that may affect the power of all federal agencies that regulate in other areas of policy. Similar to internet and worker safety regulations.

"In our case, this is the case for the main question," said Judge John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion. "There is little reason to think that Congress has assigned such a decision to the Agency."

This decision sent a shock wave to other agencies and the actions of the coming agency without the explicit approval of Congress. Threaten.

"If Congress could be expected to respond to this ruling by updating to make all these delegations more specific, that would be one thing, We and the courts know that is not the case, which will almost certainly lead to significant deregulation across a wide range of federal authorities, " Vladeck added.

The Supreme Court has limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants.

The decision was 6-3. Judge John Roberts wrote a conservative majority opinion, opposed by three liberal judges. 

Roberts said, "Our precedent advises skepticism about the EPA's allegations," and the law "capsulates carbon emissions based on a generational shift approach." It gives the authority to devise. "

"Under our precedent, this is the case for the main question," Roberts wrote. increase. Think of Congress as assigning such a decision to the agency.

Roberts wrote that limiting carbon dioxide emissions to a level that would force a nationwide transition from coal use may be a "wise" solution.

"But it is not plausible that Congress has empowered the EPA to adopt such a regulatory scheme on its own under the law in question."

"Determining such scale and outcome depends on the parliament itself, or an agency that acts according to a clear delegation from its representative body," he wrote.

Thursday's Supreme Courttells President Biden to end the controversial "stay in Mexico" immigration policy Gave the green light. It started under the Trump administration. 

Since the inauguration of the Biden administration, Biden has sought to discontinue the policy of sending certain non-Mexico citizens entering the United States back to Mexico instead of detaining them or releasing them to the United States. did. State — During their immigration process.

Biden's bid to end the program was challenged in court by a coalition of red states led by Texas who claimed that ending it violated immigration law. They also claimed that the executive branch violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Procedure Act requires government agencies to take certain procedural steps in implementing policies in a way that unleashes a program, formally known as the Immigration Protection Protocol.

First implemented in 2019 under then-President Donald Trump, the program has been criticized by immigrant advocates, is inhumane, and is dangerous to asylum seekers. Claims to be exposed to a filthy situation. In Mexico.

Before the Trump administration implemented the "Stay in Mexico" program, no other government adopted such an approach to non-Mexico asylum seekers who demanded to stay in Mexico during the immigration court process. There was not. Proceedings in the United States. Biden campaigned to end this policy, saying it "contrary to everything we support as a country of immigrants."

Biden has been working on more and more border crossings in the course of his administration during the massive migration in the Western Hemisphere. Since October, border authorities have encountered more than a million immigrants along the US-Mexico border, many of which have been rejected under different pandemic emergency rules. However, the Department of Homeland Security argues that the "stay in Mexico" policy has high labor costs and is not an effective use of resources.

See here for more information on the decision.

The Supreme Court has raised the Environmental Protection Agency'scapacity to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. Suppressed. The Biden administration is trying to reduce emissions at the moment scientists are warning about the accelerating pace of global warming.

In addition, courts have generally reduced the authority of institutions to call the so-called "major question" principle. This is a ruling that affects the federal government's authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy. Internet and worker safety regulations. 

The decision was 6-3. Judge John Roberts wrote a conservative majority opinion, opposed by three liberal judges.

This decision has been one of the most important cases for climate change and clean air for decades.

 The Supreme Court released two of the most important opinions of the term last week, nearly 50 years onabortionandgun rights expansion. Overturned the case law. In 10 years, this blockbuster term isn't over.

There are two cases that have not yet been decided. Let's see what's left.

Immigrants: Remaining in Mexico

Judges say the Biden administration can end the Trump-era border policy known as "staying in Mexico." increase. Lower courts have so far prevented Biden from ending his policy.

Under an unprecedented program launched in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security will detain certain non-Mexico citizens who have entered the United States Mexico {295. You can send it back to}  . Release them or them to the United States — while their immigration procedures are in progress.

Critics call this policy inhumane and state that it exposes asylum seekers to dangerous and filthy situations. The case raises questions not only about immigration law, but also about the president's control over policy and diplomatic relations with neighboring countries.

Climate Change: EPA Authorities to Regulate Emissions from Power Plants

Judges have stated that EPA's to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. Determine the proceedings regarding authority. Conflicts that could harm the Biden administration's attempts to reduce emissions. It's the moment scientists are warning about the accelerating pace of global warming.

The court's decision to intervene and hear cases involving environmentalists as there are currently no rules. The lower court wiped out the rules of the Trump era in 2021, and the Biden administration's EPA is now working on new rules.

However, the fact that there were enough votes to address this issue attacked some as an active subsidy, and even before the new rules appeared in the book, the courts of the EPA Indicates that you want to limit the scope of permissions.

Judge Stephen Breyerwill be at the White Houseon Wednesday. He has announced that his retirement will take effect on Thursday, June 30th. , Noon ET.

In a letter to President Joe Biden , Breyer's participation as a judge in "Efforts to Maintain Constitution and the Rule of Law" is his " It was a great honor. " Law. "

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will take an oath on Thursday and will begin serving as a member of the 116th court. , Jackson said he was ready to "take the oath stipulated in  ." The judge reviewed the list of pending petitions. Some are related to recent decisions and some are related to new issues.

According to tradition, Breyer appears in court, but the fact that the small chamber of commerce

courts give final opinions and orders on the same day is his past term. It reflects a faster timeline. Roev. The draft opinion overturning Wade is anxious for the end of a critical and disruptive period as soon as possible.

There are two major cases awaiting environmental resolution

Breyer's successor, Jackson, was confirmed in the Senate in April In a vote of  53-47, three Republicans joined the Democratic Party and voted in favor. Although her joining the bench does not change the ideological balance of her court, Jackson will be the first black woman to appear in the Supreme Court in the country.