How difficult is Biden who wants to do something?The Supreme Law of the United States is restricting the power reduction of presidential emission reduction

Jimu News reporter Huang Jiaqi

Intern Zhao Wenbo

According to Reuters, on June 30, local time, the US Supreme Court restricted the power of the federal government's supervision of carbon emissions, and this ruling destroyed Biden's emission reduction plan.

According to the US media analysis, the Supreme Court is abandoning the traditional practice of respecting the administrative plan of government agencies, and the trend of restricting the power of president is gradually strengthening.

US President Biden (Picture Source: Broadcasting Corporation)

The Supreme Court restricts the emission reduction power of the Environmental Protection Agency

Earlier, Severnia stated a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was mainly led by Republican and some large coal companies.

They believe that the Environmental Protection Agency has no right to restrict carbon emissions in all states.

19 states who filed a lawsuit worried that their power department would be forced to abandon the use of coal, causing serious economic losses.

The Supreme Court restricted the supervision power of the Environmental Protection Agency with a 6 -vote ruling of 3 votes. It stood on the side of the conservative state and fossil fuel companies, rejected the measures for the implementation of the carbon emissions of the factory for the implementation of comprehensive control of the factory.

Missouri is one of the 19 states that filed a lawsuit. The state's judicial minister Eric Schmidt said it was a "huge victory ... this will withdraw the laws and regulations of Bynden and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The court did not completely prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from formulating regulations for restricting carbon emissions in the future, but stated that it must be clearly authorized by Congress. Congress also rejected the carbon restriction plan proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Picture source: Broadcasting Corporation

The Miles Court of the US Supreme Court marked a major settlement of President Biden's climate plan.

Biden had previously promised that by 2030, the United States will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 52%on the basis of 2005.

Biden said that this was a "destructive decision to allow our country to go backwards", but it said that it would not destroy his efforts to deal with climate crisis.

In a statement, he said: "Although this decision may harm our country's ability to keep air cleaning and cope with climate change, I will not relax and will use my legitimate power to protect the public's health and respond to climate crisis."

Presidential power is restricted

The influence of this ruling of the Supreme Court may exceed the Environmental Protection Agency.

Harry, assistant professor at the University of Chicago, analyzed, analyzed that this ruling shows that the Supreme Court has "huge power" and can restrict any other regulations they don't like. "Because the judge can say that Congress does not explicitly authorize the agency matter."

US Supreme Court (Picture Source: Reuters)

For decades, the Supreme Court has always believed that when explaining federal law, judges should usually respect and obey the opinions of government agencies.

However, most conservatives are continuing to weaken this tradition. The judges choose to support the so -called "major issue principles" -the principle advocates that the free discretion of federal agencies is limited in major issues involving extensive supervision actions. This principle requires Congress to clearly authorize so that federal agencies can take action on issues with extensive importance and social influence.

In the ruling on June 30, the Supreme Court quoted this principle. They said that if Congress intends to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to issue comprehensive regulatory regulations on the entire industry, it should clearly write this power into the "Clean Air Law".

The Supreme Court quoted this principle to send a signal that the judges will become the main obstacles to the federal institutions seeking to implement national policies.

In January of this year, most judges of the Supreme Court also quoted the principles of major issues and rejected the plan of the Bayeng government's use of federal workplace law to force large companies to vaccine vaccines.

According to the US media analysis, an important change in recently shown is that the Supreme Court is more inclined to facing any form of major regulatory reforms in the face of federal agencies trying to quote blur or broad laws.

Under this trend, considering the difficulty of passing substantial new legislation in recent years, the era of president can find unilateral "change methods" in existing laws may end.

- END -