SCOTUS Gives ‘Big Business’ More Influence on Federal Regulation

Last week, the conservative U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that made it harder for the federal government to regulate virtually every issue that affects Americans’ daily lives.

It could be argued that the most devastating impact of the Supreme Court’s decision will be on how the country deals with the growing impacts of pollution and climate change.

While the ruling’s full effects may not be felt for several years, many of the communities Capital B reported on, such as those drinking lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan, and Jackson, Mississippi, or those choking on industrial pollution from fossil fuels along the Gulf Coast, California, or New York, will feel them much more quickly and intensely. The Biden administration has focused most aggressively on regulating these environmental impacts, introducing hundreds of new regulations under his watch.

Elizabeth Yeampierre, director of UPROSE, an environmental justice organization based in Brooklyn, New York, said the rulings were “an act of violence against the most vulnerable.”

In particular, it shows how concerns are waning among black Americans, who likely rely on federal regulations to protect their rights more than most groups. A recent national Gallup poll found that more than half of black adults are “very” or “somewhat” concerned about how air and water pollution affects their lives, compared with about 30% of white adults. Black adults are also the most likely to be exposed to the toxic effects of industrial companies.

The court rejected a legal theory that had helped Democratic and Republican agencies defend their regulations in court. With the rejection of the theory, known as the “Chevron Deference,” the power to make federal regulations shifts from federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to Congress and the courts. The Chevron theory relied on an interpretation of federal regulations that was to be defined by a federal agency that established guidelines. The new interpretation shifts the interpretation to the courts and Congress. Limiting the power of federal agencies makes it easier for opponents of federal regulations to challenge them in court.

“This decision will go down as one of the most important in American history. How bad was (Plessy v. Ferguson), man,” explained Jason Coupet, an assistant professor of public management and policy at Georgia State University, referring to the SCOTUS case that upheld legal segregation in 1896.

Reversing the legal theory “has been a shared goal of the conservative movement and the Trump administration,” Mandy Gunasekara told The New York Times after the ruling. Gunasekara is one of the architects of Project 2025, a right-wing plan that includes rolling back policies that have helped black people achieve economic and social benefits. The Biden administration has said that striking down the doctrine would be a “convulsive shock to the legal system” that would trigger lawsuits from hundreds of plaintiffs challenging past and future rules and regulations.

Project 2025 advocates gutting the Inflation Reduction Act, a sweeping Biden administration law that would create millions of climate-friendly jobs over the next 10 years. The policy agenda also recommends gutting greenhouse gas regulations and clean energy programs. But the impact of those moves would not be felt evenly.

We previously reported that “low-income black people are most exposed to power plant pollution and have the highest risk of death from such pollution.” And nearly 80% of black Americans live near a coal-fired power plant, compared with 56% of white people.

Read more: ‘Project 2025’ and the Movement That Could Destroy Black Equality

No matter who is elected in November, it could mean a complete reversal of the country’s recent efforts to reduce pollution and mitigate some of the worst effects of climate change. But it’s not just about the environment. It means private companies will have an easier time challenging health care regulations, workers’ rights, the food we eat and how we are taxed, to name a few.

“We really take for granted how many lives the regulatory state saves,” Coupet said, from ensuring chemicals don’t flood our food to the cleanliness of our water. “This decision could kill millions.”

When it comes to the environment, the problem is that Congress and members of the courts often lack the science to guide these regulations, which would give polluters a greater chance to shape how those regulations are actually implemented. The Climate Justice Alliance, which includes dozens of environmental groups across the country, said the court ruling shows “loyalty to big business and polluters, not to communities on the front lines.”

In another ruling last week, the court blocked an EPA plan to reduce air pollution that blows across state lines. The decision blocked the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” provision, which requires the nation’s 23 states that are “downwind” to reduce air pollution that often travels to neighboring states. In a rare instance, the court blocked the regulations before lower courts could rule on the matter.

Yeampierre said that with these rulings “we are going back in time and down an even more harmful path for ordinary people.”

The article SCOTUS allows ‘big business’ greater influence over federal regulation first appeared on Capital B News.