People need to not be jumping to conclusions based on the article title and actually look at the details of the case in question and the history of the case. Yo

People need to not be jumping to conclusions based on the article title and actually look at the details of the case in question and the history of the case. You need to look at the reasoning used, not whether you personally like the ultimate decision or not. Because this bill was stayed by Supreme Court, removed by Trump, and then replaced by a new interpretation put in place by the Trump EPA, this interpretation in question has basically never been in place in the some 12 years since it was passed. Wikipedia has a good summary of the events leading up to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA > The case centers on language of Section 7411(d) of Title 42 of the United States Code[2] authorizing the EPA to regulate emissions from existing power plants, which when amended and signed into law in 1990 mistakenly included contradictory language from both the House and Senate's version of the bill that never was reconciled, leaving the interpretation to the EPA. > The suit stems from a 2015 Obama administration EPA rule, the Clean Power Plan, based on a statutory interpretation of section § 7411(d) towards meeting the Paris Agreement in carbon dioxide emissions reductions. The Clean Power Plan was challenged by several states and coal industry companies, and stayed by order of the Supreme Court. With the Trump administration, the EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan in favor of the less-aggressive Affordable Clean Power rule in 2019 based on a different interpretation of § 7411(d), and the case against the Clean Power Plan rendered moot. Several other states and health and environmental groups challenged this new rule, and the District of Columbia Circuit Court ruled in January 2021 that the Affordable Clean Power rule was arbitrary and capricious and misinterpreted § 7411(d), vacating this new rule. > Several of the states that first challenged the Clean Power Plan as well as coal industry-related companies challenged the D.C. Circuit's ruling on their analysis of the § 7411(d) and the EPA's authority granted by it, concerned that the Circuit's ruling would give the EPA far broader powers on emissions regulation. West Virginia v. EPA represents a consolidation of four petitions that the Supreme Court certified to review the D.C. Circuit's decision. > The court issued its 6-3 opinion on June 30, 2022, ruling that regulation of power plant emissions on a national scale fell within the major questions doctrine, and within that, Congress did not grant the EPA authority to regulate emissions based on generation shifting mechanisms, which would have invalidated the Clean Power Plan. The EPA may still continue to regulate emissions through emissions reduction technologies. And as for the meaning of that "major questions doctrine". > The major questions doctrine is a rough analogue to the nondelegation doctrine, where the Supreme Court has held in recent years that in order for them to do so, Congress must have clearly authorized agencies to regulate issues of national significance.[14] When Congress fails to comply with this clear statement rule, the courts infer that Congress did not intend to empower the agency. I'm not clear exactly how to interpret this personally.