On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would accept a case involving a renewable energy law and a regulatory agency — specifically the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — from the Pacific Legal Foundation and Western Tradition Partnership. And the place to go to read the news about that case is on FoxNews.com.
Now, once again, the matter of federal power and whether the EPA has the authority to impose a nearly unchecked expansion of its regulatory authority is at stake — this time from Washington, D.C. As FoxNews.com reported:
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a major legal challenge to the EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, as the Obama administration has done with a system of limiting emissions from several types of sources, including power plants, factories and refineries. The case, Duane Ford v. Environmental Protection Agency, will take on the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s climate change agenda, which would give the agency the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other carbon-based air pollutants as pollutants. Environmentalists argue that imposing limits on emissions will give U.S. businesses a market-based way to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and shift toward clean energy and green technology. Utility companies and industry, however, say the regulations will be too expensive to adhere to, could create job losses and hurt the economy. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled in favor of the EPA, which had asked the high court to review the appellate court’s decision to block implementation of its climate change regulations.
Obviously, one of the stated goals of environmentalists is to regulate the use of fossil fuels — a trend you’d expect them to promote given the fact that ExxonMobil, Devon Energy, and Pioneer Natural Resources are just some of the energy industry companies that back the case filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation and Western Tradition Partnership. (Check out the full list of companies that support the case — and probably many more that don’t — here.)
You can bet these same companies will be urging the justices to review the ruling upholding the EPA, which says that it has the right to oversee the sales of cars, light trucks, SUVs, and vans, and even diesel engines that currently emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
Besides, companies won’t even be affected by the ruling if the justices weigh in and decide the case along the lines of those quoted by The Hill’s Nahal Toosi. The group’s legal staff opined:
“The conventional wisdom is that even if we prevail, it is far more likely that the Supreme Court will reject the EPA’s expansive reach to regulate CO2 in a robust and legally defensible way. Simply put, to put that far reach away permanently, we will have to win big — a significant victory to the existing gridlock over the core question at the heart of the Court’s pending ruling.”
A slim majority on the Supreme Court is likely to agree with the opinion expressed by the legal staffers at The Hill.
There is no doubt that there is conflict in the Supreme Court, especially when it comes to issues that pit the American economic interest against the government interventionists who truly believe government can control the economy.
Add the EPA’s total control of the oil and gas industry to everything else it has been doing to limit Americans’ ability to do things the American way and there’s a battle being waged that couldn’t be further from the story being played out in Washington, D.C. By far, the best way to keep this conflict from being given any further oxygen is to vote for Donald Trump — who has spent time in an intimate relationship with the challenges of the American economy.
Watch for more details of this case to play out on FoxNews.com.
Brian Tashman is a writer and producer living in Washington, D.C. He has worked for Fox News Channel since 1997.