> If Congress debates whether they should ban the chemical and decides not to pass anything, does the EPA still have that right? If yes, what's the difference?

> If Congress debates whether they should ban the chemical and decides not to pass anything, does the EPA still have that right? If yes, what's the difference? It's a separation of powers thing. The legislative branch has the power to empower a portion of the executive branch (the EPA) to do things like ban chemicals. What can't happen is the legislative branch empowering another branch to empower other branches. Congress can't pass a law that empowers the judiciary to empower the executive branch. The executive branch has to go to the legislative branch directly. The FBI can't do an end-run around congress declining to extend its powers by going to the judiciary and "finding" those same powers in the AWA. The argument here is that the FBI's reading of the AWA would mean that the AWA does exactly that, and is therefore unconstitutional. So, consistent with the idea that a law should always be interpreted in a way that keeps it constitutional and compatible with other laws if at all possible, the FBI's proposed interpretation of the law must be viewed as incorrect.