Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share S2E17. Lisa Heinzerling on Environmental Law and the Supreme Court
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
S2E17. Lisa Heinzerling on Environmental Law and the Supreme Court
On this episode Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Lisa Heinzerling, an environmental law professor at Georgetown University and former Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Policy during the Obama administration.
The focus of the episode is centered around major Supreme Court decisions on environmental law over the past two decades. The two begin by discussing Massachusetts v. EPA, a 2007 case where the Court ruled 5-4 that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Heinzerling explains that during the Bush administration, the EPA denied a petition to regulate greenhouse gases, arguing it lacked authority and did not want to regulate. Environmental groups challenged this decision, leading to the Supreme Court ruling the EPA does have authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act’s broad definition of “air pollutant” (0:00-7:54).
The pair then discuss how Massachusetts v. EPA established clear statutory authority for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses and shaped the Obama administration’s regulatory actions. Fifteen years later, and after a complicated procedural history, the Supreme Court reviewed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). In that case, in striking contrast to Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court limited the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. In West Virginia, the Court also embraced the “major questions doctrine,” which presumes against broad agency regulatory authority on major policy issues (7:55-27:40).
On the Clean Water Act, Heinzerling and Livermore trace a similar pattern. In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Court upheld federal jurisdiction over wetlands with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters, but the recent Sackett v. EPA (2022) severely restricted federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (27:41- 40:01).
Heinzerling expresses concern that the current Supreme Court's skepticism of agency regulation will constrain executive and agency actions to address environmental problems like climate change. She finds the road traveled in just less than two decades from Massachusetts v. EPA to be “sobering.” Livermore concludes by noting that although some environmentalists believe that the courts could be a useful venue for promoting a strong response to climate change, with the current Court, that seems highly unlikely (40:02-56:45).
View all episodes
By Free Range with Mike Livermore
5
1313 ratings
On this episode Free Range, host Mike Livermore is joined by Lisa Heinzerling, an environmental law professor at Georgetown University and former Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Policy during the Obama administration.
The focus of the episode is centered around major Supreme Court decisions on environmental law over the past two decades. The two begin by discussing Massachusetts v. EPA, a 2007 case where the Court ruled 5-4 that the EPA has authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Heinzerling explains that during the Bush administration, the EPA denied a petition to regulate greenhouse gases, arguing it lacked authority and did not want to regulate. Environmental groups challenged this decision, leading to the Supreme Court ruling the EPA does have authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act’s broad definition of “air pollutant” (0:00-7:54).
The pair then discuss how Massachusetts v. EPA established clear statutory authority for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses and shaped the Obama administration’s regulatory actions. Fifteen years later, and after a complicated procedural history, the Supreme Court reviewed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). In that case, in striking contrast to Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court limited the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. In West Virginia, the Court also embraced the “major questions doctrine,” which presumes against broad agency regulatory authority on major policy issues (7:55-27:40).
On the Clean Water Act, Heinzerling and Livermore trace a similar pattern. In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Court upheld federal jurisdiction over wetlands with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters, but the recent Sackett v. EPA (2022) severely restricted federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (27:41- 40:01).
Heinzerling expresses concern that the current Supreme Court's skepticism of agency regulation will constrain executive and agency actions to address environmental problems like climate change. She finds the road traveled in just less than two decades from Massachusetts v. EPA to be “sobering.” Livermore concludes by noting that although some environmentalists believe that the courts could be a useful venue for promoting a strong response to climate change, with the current Court, that seems highly unlikely (40:02-56:45).