I think this is the case you are referring to: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court-curbed-epas-power-to-regulate-carbon-emissions-from

I think this is the case you are referring to: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court-curbed-epas-power-to-regulate-carbon-emissions-from-power-plants-what-comes-next/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court... July 19, 2022 – In late June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot put state-level caps on carbon emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Such authority would, in effect, steer states away from coal and toward other types of power sources that emit less carbon. The Court said that, instead, the authority to decide how power is created in the U.S. must come from Congress. I personally find that reasonable. >But the NSA can warrant less wiretap on a grand scale without a similar level of specificity. They refused to hear it (didn't rule one way or the other and the lower courts are split) citing the state secrets privilege. I would have liked them to take the case too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikipedia-bid-challenge-nsa-surveillance-2023-02-21/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikiped... >Maybe you meant to say, “the courts are supposed to interpret laws and not make them up” Yes.