2月28日，美国最高法院在一组清洁空气案件中听取了口头辩论，这些案件使电力公司，美国环境保护署和环境倡导者反对煤炭行业利益以及包括西弗吉尼亚州在内的几个共和党领导的州。

Both sides said the case could have sweeping ramifications on the U.S. power sector, federal agencies’ ability to regulate it and the overall economy.

“This is one of the most important administrative law and separation of powers cases in quite some time,” Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia attorney general, said on Feb. 28. “This case will determine who decides the major issues of the day: unelected bureaucrats or Congress, which is comprised of those elected by the people to serve the people.”

但是质疑法官所采取的措施表明，他们可能不愿意颠覆基岩的假设，即EPA有权调节温室气体，该温室气体于2007年成立于2007年。Massachusetts v. EPA.

哥伦比亚大学萨宾气候变化法中心的创始人兼主任迈克尔·杰拉德（Michael Gerrard）说，在口头辩论之前，“在环境团体中，大法官在（环境团体中）有很多关注，这是大法官可以非常广泛的统治，而且很大程度上受到威胁。我认为他们不会像一方面那样广泛地统治并被另一方面希望。”

The nation’s high court agreed to hear the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., vacated a Trump administration regulation in December 2020. That rule had repealed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources and replaced it with the more-limited Affordable Clean Energy rule.

支持EPA的电力公司表示，他们更喜欢奥巴马规则，因为它使他们在遵守要求方面具有灵活性。

Making the Argument

West Virginia, several coal companies and other Republican-led states appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case last fall. In their arguments, the petitioners said the Clean Power Plan was an example of federal overreach that was not supported by the federal Clean Air Act, and in fact extended beyond the scope of what EPA could legally do.

这可能会触发“主要问题”学说，这是一个相当技术的法律概念，该概念涉及由于机构超越当局而导致的转型变化。

Attorneys representing EPA and the power companies countered that because the Clean Power Plan was not reinstated, and because EPA is working on a proposed new regulation that won’t be released until later this year, it was too early even to consider the case before the court.

美国司法部律师伊丽莎白·帕雷洛格（Elizabeth Preloger）说：“尝试以抽象的方式思考当前适用的法规的权威行使是有问题的。”

在她的反驳,林赛看,年代olicitor general for Charleston, W.Va., disputed Preloger’s assertions that the Clean Power Plan was not reinstated as a result of the D.C. appeals court ruling.

While the justices did not seem to want to overturn EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, they asked numerous questions related to the major questions doctrine.

EarthJustice战略法律倡导总监Kirti Datla说，这可能表明他们可能有兴趣建立更清晰，更广泛的声明，这可能对联邦机构提出更大的限制。她指出了首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts），塞缪尔·阿里托（Samuel Alito）法官等人的问题，她指出：“即使他们似乎不知道何时[该学说]适用。”

在清洁空气案中的口头辩论前三天，乔·拜登总统宣布，他将提名Ketanji Brown Jackson填补退休史蒂芬·布雷耶（Stephen Breyer）大法官所占据的席位。她是前法官的书记员，她也将是第一位坐在球场上的非裔美国妇女。

建筑工会和民主党倾斜团体称赞杰克逊的选择，杰克逊去年加入了华盛顿上诉法院，在此之前，在2013年开始在哥伦比亚特区的美国地方法院任职。

一位建筑行业消息人士说，如果确认杰克逊，她在华盛顿联邦上诉法院的经验将是一项资产，因为与联邦机构和法规打交道的案件往往会被带到该法院。

消息人士说：“该巡回法院的法官是最高法院准备好应对许多严重监管问题的准备，”消息人士说，他还指出，法院的基本保守主义自由主义构成可能不会改变。“这是一个6-3的法庭；它将保持6-3的法庭。”