May 30, 2025
Reinstating Chevron
Timothy Birdnow
I find this puzzling.
Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review - SCOTUSblog
Ruling on environmentalist lawsuits is beyond the competency and scope of the judiciary. Judges go to law school; they don't study science. BUT it's even more outside of the scope of bureaucrats.
From SCOTUSblog:
I don't know about kavanaugh's reasoning here. He is empowering regulatory agencies it seems. The Court overturned the Chevron Deference, whereby they had granted the authority to regulatory agencies (like the EPA)based on the theory such agencies were "experts". This ruling seems to fly in the face of their last ruling.
So Kavanaugh is asking for deference to the regulatory agencies, which is exactly what the Court overturned in their ruling.
If the liberals on the court are on board something is seriously wrong. Make no mistake.
I find this puzzling.
Supreme Court limits scope of environmental review - SCOTUSblog
Ruling on environmentalist lawsuits is beyond the competency and scope of the judiciary. Judges go to law school; they don't study science. BUT it's even more outside of the scope of bureaucrats.
From SCOTUSblog:
In ruling for the railroad, the justices sketched out a relatively narrow role for courts reviewing future decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act, the landmark environmental law at the center of the case. Emphasizing that the "goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it,” Justice Brett Kavanagh explained that courts should give "substantial deference” to the agency’s determination as to what should be included in the environmental impact statement prepared for a project. "In deciding cases involving the American economy,” Kavanaugh concluded, "courts should strive, where possible, for clarity and predictability.”
The court’s three Democratic appointees agreed more narrowly with the result that their colleagues reached, even if they did not agree with the reasoning that they used to arrive at that conclusion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the majority "unnecessarily ground[ed] its analysis largely in matters of policy,” but the board, based on the statute itself, did not have the power to reject the application to build the railroad based on any negative effects that might flow from products carried on the railway.
The dispute before the court began after the U.S. Surface Transportation Board approved a proposal by a group of Utah counties to build a railroad line that would connect with the broader interstate freight rail network to "facilitate the transportation of crude oil” from the state’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to refineries in states like Louisiana and Texas. The proposed train would quadruple production at Utah’s largest oil and gas fields. In August 2021, the board released an environmental impact statement that was more than 3,600 pages long and addressed the environmental consequences of the project. In approving the project in December of that year, the board explained that the project’s "substantial transportation and economic benefits” outweighed those environmental effects.
The court’s three Democratic appointees agreed more narrowly with the result that their colleagues reached, even if they did not agree with the reasoning that they used to arrive at that conclusion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the majority "unnecessarily ground[ed] its analysis largely in matters of policy,” but the board, based on the statute itself, did not have the power to reject the application to build the railroad based on any negative effects that might flow from products carried on the railway.
The dispute before the court began after the U.S. Surface Transportation Board approved a proposal by a group of Utah counties to build a railroad line that would connect with the broader interstate freight rail network to "facilitate the transportation of crude oil” from the state’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to refineries in states like Louisiana and Texas. The proposed train would quadruple production at Utah’s largest oil and gas fields. In August 2021, the board released an environmental impact statement that was more than 3,600 pages long and addressed the environmental consequences of the project. In approving the project in December of that year, the board explained that the project’s "substantial transportation and economic benefits” outweighed those environmental effects.
I don't know about kavanaugh's reasoning here. He is empowering regulatory agencies it seems. The Court overturned the Chevron Deference, whereby they had granted the authority to regulatory agencies (like the EPA)based on the theory such agencies were "experts". This ruling seems to fly in the face of their last ruling.
So Kavanaugh is asking for deference to the regulatory agencies, which is exactly what the Court overturned in their ruling.
If the liberals on the court are on board something is seriously wrong. Make no mistake.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:24 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I believe the idea here is to keep things on the straight and narrow; look just at what the issue at hand is and don't let it go overboard, as so many environmental issues try to do. SCOTUSblog's writeup may be confusing and you may well find clearer explanations elsewhere (I don't have one at hand at the moment, sad to say).
"Don't let the Gang Green get their licks in" might be another way to put it.
"Don't let the Gang Green get their licks in" might be another way to put it.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at May 30, 2025 11:04 PM (G90di)
2
Dana, I am sure that is how many on our side took this and are celebrating it as a win,but I worry about the reasoning employed,because once such an argument is enshrined by precdent it can be twisted to the service of the Left.
The reason I find this confusing is that it contradicts the Court's reasoning in overturning Chevron. THAT was a huge win for us at it said regulatory agencies do NOT have expertise and are therefore to be deferred to by the courts. Now they just said the courts have no expertise and so should defer to regulatory agencies.
The outcome may be good for us here but I fear it will simply reinstate Chevron.
The reason I find this confusing is that it contradicts the Court's reasoning in overturning Chevron. THAT was a huge win for us at it said regulatory agencies do NOT have expertise and are therefore to be deferred to by the courts. Now they just said the courts have no expertise and so should defer to regulatory agencies.
The outcome may be good for us here but I fear it will simply reinstate Chevron.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at May 31, 2025 07:42 AM (ncw/m)
3
I think Dana pretty much has it right. It might also be explained in terms of "consequential damages." The impact of the construction of the railroad itself is the only environmental issue at hand, not the effect of any increased production by the factory producing the goods which the railroad will ship.
Posted by: Bill H at May 31, 2025 08:20 AM (Q7br2)
4
Well I sure hope so Bill butt knowing how any ruling reverberates across the board I am not at all confident that is how it will be taken by lower courts.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 01, 2025 07:12 AM (lU5Y3)
25kb generated in CPU 0.0131, elapsed 0.1909 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1835 seconds, 176 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.1835 seconds, 176 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
