The Case That Stopped the EPA Cold | West Virginia v. EPA

Can't get enough of this video? Here are some related videos:

Related videos:
The American Presidential Election of 2016 (Released 1/6/2017)
The American Presidential Election of 2020 (Released 2/12/2021)
The Joe Biden Song (Released 2/7/2025)

And as promised, here is the script from my video:

The District of Columbia
June 2, 2014

The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, led by President Barack Obama, presents new rules in an attempt to fight climate change, or the long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns on the planet, mostly caused by humans burning fossil fuels, cutting down a bunch of trees, and animal agriculture, among other things. These new rules to fight climate change included requiring that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation be reduced by 32% by 2030, compared to recorded levels from 2005, at least. States would have to submit plans with how they would move forward to make that happen. They had to submit the plans by 2018 and enforcement would start by 2022. Notice how I keep saying “would.”

You see, many states weren’t so happy about having to do this. Neither were many energy companies. In August 2015, 27 different states, along with hundreds of these energy companies, challenged the EPA’s authority to enforce these new rules. They all sued the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In court, these states and companies argued that the Clean Air Act didn’t give the federal government the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Well, the EPA claimed that the Clean Air Act actually DID give them that authority, and it referenced the Supreme Court case King v. Burwell (2015), a decision that gave the federal government broader authority to enforce Obamacare, as precedent to back that up. Woah snap. But hold up, the states and energy companies also argued that the EPA was wrongly delegating federal authority to the states. In other words, they argued that the EPA was trying to get the states to do the work of the federal government, and that went against the Tenth Amendment.

However, things kind of stayed in limbo throughout 2016 as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit never made an official decision. Meanwhile, after Donald Trump won the presidency  in November, it became clear he was going to reverse the EPA rules, anyway. In response, the EPA proposed new rules to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that were much less strict. The Trump administration was cool with these new rules as it meant that the coal and oil industries would be making more money, but one EPA analysis also found that these more lenient rules would also lead to 1400 more deaths each year related to respiratory problems.[1] In response to these concerns, the American Lung Association and American Public Health Association, sued the EPA on July 8, 2019. 170 other organizations, as well as 23 states, joined in to also sue the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Man the EPA just getting sued all around. Anyway, they all argued the EPA was epically failing to fulfill its obligations to improve public health under the Clean Air Act. Not only that, the EPA was epically failing to reduce carbon emissions. On January 19, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit announced it had sided with the American Lung Association and all the others. As it turns out, this was the day before a new president, Joe Biden, would be taking over, and he had signaled a return to the strict EPA rules first set by Obama.

Before the EPA could make new rules to curb carbon emissions, West Virginia, along with 18 other states and energy companies, all appealed the D.C. Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. Even though the Biden administration begged the Supreme Court to not get involved, it agreed to take on the case, hearing oral arguments on February 28, 2022.

For this case, the Court had to consider the following big question:
Does the EPA have the authority to regulate carbon emissions in any industry?

Welp, the Court said “no.” On June 30, 2022, it announced it had sided with West Virginia and the others. It was 6-3. The Court said that when Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it never granted the EPA the authority to regulate carbon emissions. The Court used what’s known as the “major questions doctrine” to back up its opinion. The major questions doctrine says that, when in doubt, courts should assume that Congress doesn’t let the executive branch handle policies of “vast economic or political significance.”[2] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying that in “certain extraordinary cases, both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent make us ‘reluctant to read into ambiguous statutory text’ the delegation claimed to be lurking there.” He added, “To convince us otherwise…the (executive branch) agency must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power it claims.”[3]

West Virginia v. EPA was another controversial decision that further divided those with generally left-leaning political beliefs and those with generally right-leaning political beliefs. Those on the left argued that this stripping of the power of the EPA would be detrimental for the environment. In particular, critics said it would hurt progress trying to fight climate change. Those on the right generally viewed the decision as a win for the coal and oil industries, as well as a more limited federal government. However folks personally view this decision, it definitely weakened the executive branch and strengthened the legislative branch.

I’ll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!

So what do YOU think about this decision? Well, in my opinion, this decision was quite devastating for humans living on planet Earth. But don’t lose hope. Because while Supreme Court decisions absolutely shape environmental policy, they don’t completely determine the future of our planet. There are still things we can do to help make our one and only planet a better place for us to live in, especially when we act together. It wouldn’t feel right to spend all this time discussing environmental policy without also trying to make a tangible impact myself.

That’s one of the reasons why I’m a Planet Wild member. Planet Wild is a community-based nature protection organization. Think of it as crowdfunding for nature. Every month, Planet Wild’s community of more than 20,000 members funds missions to bring back endangered species, protect our oceans, or restore forests. It’s an easy way to protect nature. They document all these missions right here on YouTube so we can see what our contributions helped achieve. And check it out. They’ve already done big-time projects, like stopping plastic in the storm drains and rivers of Mumbai before it reaches the ocean.
We protect nature for our grandchildren, and Planet Wild is doing just that.

If you want to join a growing community that makes a difference in nature, consider joining Planet Wild. You can give whatever amount…big or small…that feels right to you. 
And here's a special gift for you…the first 100 people to sign up using my code BEAT3 will get their first month paid for by me. Just scan this QR code or click the link in the description of this video.

You'll immediately have an impact in nature and see the result in less than 30 days here on YouTube. And there's no catch here. You cancel anytime! 

If you want to see Planet Wild in action, check out their mission fighting ocean plastic. I’ll add it to the endcard.

And now it’s time for a shout out for my Patreon supporters who donate at least $15 or more each month to my channel. Starting with my biggest donors in reverse alphabetical order, thank you to…

Thank you to ALL my Patreon supporters and channel members, don’t forget about the Planet Wild video, and thank YOU for staying curious. 
___________________________________
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html
[2] https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/1045-public-institutions-administrative-law-cases-materials/resources/4.2.4.1-major-questions-doctrine
[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530

Check out cool primary sources here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1530

Other sources used:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
https://fedsoc.org/case/west-virginia-v-epa 
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/west-virginia-v-environmental-protection-agency/
https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/client-alerts/20220711-west-virginia-v-epa
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/podcasts/the-daily/west-virginia-v-epa-climate-change.html https://www.theregreview.org/2026/02/17/farber-epas-problematic-case-for-rescinding-its-endangerment-finding/ 
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/07/supreme-courts-epa-west-virginia-climate-ruling/