Scalia Decries ‘Unelected Agency Officials Exercising Broad Lawmaking Authority’ in EPA Case

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-2 this morning in favor of the
Environmental Protection Agency in a case testing the EPA’s powers
to interpret and enforce an “ambiguous” provision of the Clean Air
Act. According to the majority opinion of Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, “we read Congress’ silence as a delegation of authority
to EPA to select from among reasonable options.”

The case originated with the problem of regulating air pollution
that travels from “upwind” states to “downwind” states. According
to the Court, “EPA must have leeway in fulfillng its statutory
mandate” to combat this problem. “We routinely accord dispositive
effect to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous
statutory language,” declared Justice Ginsburg, in a ruling joined
by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen
Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan (Justice Samuel Alito was
recused).

Writing in dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice
Clarence Thomas, fired back at the majority’s deference to the EPA.
“Too many important decisions of the Federal Government are made
nowadays by unelected agency officials exercising broad lawmaking
authority, rather than by the people’s representatives in
Congress,” Scalia declared.

The opinion in EPA v. EME Homer Air City Generation is
available here.