A Strategy to Address SCOTUS Overreach

Previously I focused on establishing the Presidential Review (OIRA)   of agency actions in the White House Office of Management and Budget; I am now focusing on Congressional Review of judicial actions.

Jim Tozzi  

Center for Regulatory Effectiveness

                     email:  tozzi@thecre.com


[The following was downloaded from this page]



David Doniger & Lissa Lynch


In West Virginia the conservative Supreme Court majority announced the “major questions doctrine” and rejected the novel regulatory approach EPA had adopted in its 2015 Clean Power Plan. The decision signals potentially daunting new obstacles for federal agencies trying to address emerging challenges of the modern world. The Court found that Congress hadn’t given a clear enough authorization in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act for the “generation-shifting” strategy that EPA had chosen. At the same time, the Court acknowledged EPA’s “traditional” authority to set standards under that section based on pollution controls that “caus[e] plants to operate more cleanly.” That’s why we called the decision “a setback, not a death blow” for EPA climate regulations.


Editor’s Note:  While the severity of the  destruction that the Major Questions Doctrine has imposed on the climate change program is open to debate,  what is not debatable is that the only  act in town to address the issue immediately is  for either the President or the Congress to initiate action on the Common Law Initiative. Hopefully national environmental groups will come to a similar conclusion; a relevant event.




Leave a Reply

Please Answer: *