West Virginia v. EPA

West Virginia v. EPA (June 30, 3022) is a 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that defeated the radical environmentalists' agenda of trying to force the coal industry to convert to greener energy, without congressional authorization for the planned onerous regulations.

This decision could help in other cases, such as opposing tyranny by the CDC and FDA, because the Court formally adopted major questions doctrine for the first time, in reining in the Administrative State.

Major questions doctrine

The Court majority ruled:

“

But in what the dissent calls the “key case” in this area, Brown & Williamson, post, at 15, the Court could not have been clearer: “In extraordinary cases ... there may be reason to hesitate” before accepting a reading of a statute that would, under more “ordinary” circumstances, be upheld. 529 U. S., at 159. Or, as we put it more recently, we “typically greet” assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy” with “skepticism.” Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324. The dissent attempts to fit the analysis in these cases within routine statutory interpretation, but the bottom line—a requirement of “clear congressional authorization,” ibid.—confirms that the approach under the major questions doctrine is distinct. As for the major questions doctrine “label[],” post, at 13, it took hold because it refers to an identifiable body of law that has developed over a series of significant cases all addressing a particular and recurring problem: agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted. Scholars and jurists have recognized the common threads between those decisions. So have we. See Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324 (citing Brown & Williamson and MCI); King v. Burwell, 576 U. S. 473, 486 (2015) (citing Utility Air, Brown & Williamson, and Gonzales).

”