7/1/22 - U.S. Supreme Court Rules Before Session Ends

The U.S. Supreme Court is now off for the summer months but just before they left, they issued a ruling on a couple key decisions.

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to strictly regulate emissions from power plants.

In a 6-3 opinion, the nation's highest court ruled in West Virginia v. EPA that the federal agency does not have the authority to regulate industry greenhouse gas emissions. The case stems from former President Obama's Clean Power Plan, which would have enforced mandates for how much emissions power plants could emit. The plan was never officially implemented as it faced legal challenges and was rolled back under the Trump administration.

The court's opinion states that when it comes to capping carbon dioxide emissions, "is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme." It also said that a "decision of such magnitude and consequence" should reside with Congress. 

In a statement, President Biden called it a "devastating decision" that "risks damaging our nation's ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change."      Some Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, applauded the decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled Thursday that the Biden administration could cancel the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy. 

The "Remain in Mexico" immigration policy required migrants seeking entry into the U.S., to stay in Mexico as they awaited hearings. 

Known formally as the Migrant Protection Protocols, the rule requires most asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims are processed. President Joe Biden lifted the program last year, but a federal judge ordered him to reinstate it under a Texas-led lawsuit.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts overturned a ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that forced border officials to revive the Remain in Mexico rules, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, in December. Roberts said the 1996 law authorizing the program does not require officials to return migrants to Mexico, but simply gives them the option to do so, noting the use of the word "may" in the statute.

If Congress meant for the law to require asylum-seekers to be returned to Mexico, Roberts wrote, "it would not have conveyed that intention through an unspoken inference in conflict with the unambiguous, express term 'may.'"