New setback from the Supreme Court of the United States to President Joe Biden. Barely a week after suppressing the right to abortion defended by the Democrats, the High Court yesterday issued a ruling that substantially restricts the Government's powers in the fight against climate change. The decision is a blow against Biden's environmental agenda, one of his priorities as president but also one of his key commitments as an aspiring global leader in the battle for a sustainable present and a possible future.
The 6-3 conservative majority that dominates the nation's highest judicial body determined that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming.
The resolution does not completely remove the agency's ability to regulate the energy sector. The EPA will be able to continue to control gas emissions at individual power plants. But you will not be able to establish general rules on emission maximums.
"Limiting carbon dioxide emissions to a level that forces a transition away from the use of coal in electricity generation can be a 'sensible solution to the crisis of the moment", admitted with reference to a previous case the rapporteur of the sentence and president of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. But he specified that "it is not plausible to maintain that Congress gave the EPA the authority to be able to adopt such a regulatory scheme on its own." Because "a decision of such magnitude must fall to Congress itself or to an agency acting by virtue of a clear delegation from that representative body."
The three magistrates of the progressive minority, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, issued a dissenting opinion of dramatic overtones adjusted to the importance of the matter: “Today, the Supreme Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency of the power that Congress gave it. granted to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time”, they headed their writing.
With a speech by Elena Kagan, the three dissenters added without cutting too much: “Regardless of what this court may know, the truth is that it has no idea how to address climate change. There is a lot at stake here. But the court now prevents the agency authorized by Congress to curb CO2 emissions from acting and appoints itself, rather than Congress or experts, as the one making decisions on climate policy. We cannot imagine many more terrifying things. And we respectfully disagree."
Biden declared months ago the "red code for humanity" for the climate crisis. And he has repeatedly promised that by the year 2030 greenhouse gas emissions from the United States – 14% of the planet's total – will be reduced by 50% compared to 2005. fulfill it.
The president's plans in this area have already suffered a serious setback with the rejection last year, by Republican parliamentarians but also by Democratic senator Joe Manchin, of his ambitious plan for social and environmental spending. The program went from an initial budget of 3.5 billion to less than 2 billion, and even then it was stranded. It will be difficult to revive it before the legislative elections in November. And if Democrats then lose their slim House majority, the plan may die.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court granted Biden a break yesterday by giving the green light to his government to finalize the rule of the Donald Trump era that, known as Stay in Mexico, forces asylum seekers on the southern border to wait in that country while their cases are processed. The decision has been causing the retention of thousands of migrants, under dangerous conditions, in neighboring Mexican towns.
The ruling gives Biden a victory by giving him back control over one of his most important policies internally and with respect to the Latino electorate. But he also forces him to multiply his efforts to regulate immigration and avoid chaos at times of great growth in migratory pressure.
The resolution was adopted by 5 votes to 4, with conservatives Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh on the same side as the three progressives. The ruling states that the Stay in Mexico program is not required under federal immigration law. According to the arguments supported by the Government, federal officials will be able to release part of the asylum seekers within the country while they wait to be called and given a hearing to process their requests.
The administration tried twice to overturn Trump's regulation, but the states of Texas and Missouri appealed. A judge and then an appeals court suspended the government reversal, and the matter then went to the Supreme Court.
