4 ms·

> Seems like the main points are that they are not going to propose again the same rules which were ruled unconstitutional It wasn't ruled unconstitutional, it

> Seems like the main points are that they are not going to propose again the same rules which were ruled unconstitutional It wasn't ruled unconstitutional, it was stayed by the Supreme Court while a lower court decided if the rule was within the EPA's regulatory power under the Clean Air Act. Then the Trump administration came into power and asked the court to put the case on hold while they rewrote the regulations. Maybe that's causing the confusion within the rest of your post, because it isn't a question of constitutionality. If the Supreme Court rules that the EPA "only has authority over environmental infractions at individual plants, like chemical spills and improper handling of hazardous materials", a rule from the EPA like this might not be possible again.

microcolonel 7y ago
> It wasn't ruled unconstitutional, it was stayed by the Supreme Court... My misunderstanding from all the words going around. > If the Supreme Court rules that the EPA "only has authority over environmental infractions at individual plants, like chemical spills and improper handling of hazardous materials", a rule from the EPA like this might not be possible again. AFAIK the Supreme Court does not tend to rule on whether you "only" have the authority to do something, they're more likely to rule that a given thing is something that you don't have the authority to do. Maybe it's different when it comes to federal agencies, on that I'm ignorant. It seems more likely that the Supreme Court simply takes no issue with the new policy, rather than making a broad pronouncement about what future policy could be.