Last week, in a monumental decision, the conservative U.S. Supreme Court made it harder for the federal government to regulate virtually everything that impact’s Americans’ daily lives.
Arguably the most damning impact of the SCOTUS decisions will be on how the country faces the mounting impacts of pollution and climate change.
While the ruling’s impacts might not be fully felt for a few years, many of the communities Capital B has reported on, like those drinking lead-contaminated water in Flint, Michigan, and Jackson, Mississippi, or choking on industrial pollution from fossil fuels along the Gulf Coast, in California, or New York, will feel it much sooner and more intensely. The Biden administration has most aggressively focused on regulating these environmental impacts, with hundreds of new rules created under his administration.
Elizabeth Yeampierre, the director of UPROSE, a environmental justice group based in Brooklyn, New York, said the rulings are “an act of violence against the most vulnerable.”
In particular, it shows how the concerns of Black Americans, who arguably rely on federal regulations to protect their rights more than most groups, are diminished. A recent national Gallup poll found that over half of Black adults are “very” or “fairly concerned” about how air and water pollution is impacting their lives, compared with around 30% of white adults. Black adults are also most likely to be concerned about how they’re exposed to the toxic impacts of industrial companies.
The court discarded a legal theory that has helped both Democratic and Republican agencies defend their regulations in court. With the theory, known as the “Chevron Deference,” scrapped, the power of crafting federal rules shifts from federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to Congress and the courts. The Chevron theory relied on the interpretation of federal regulations to be defined by the federal agency that set forth the guidelines. The new interpretation kicks the interpretation to courts and Congress. The shrinkage of federal agencies’ power makes it easier for opponents of federal regulations to challenge them in court.
“The decision is going to go down as one of the most consequential in American history. Like [Plessy v. Ferguson] bad, man,” explained Jason Coupet, an associate professor of public management and policy at Georgia State University, referring to the SCOTUS case that upheld legal segregation in 1896.
Overturning the legal theory “was a shared goal of the conservative movement and the Trump administration,” Mandy Gunasekara told The New York Times following the ruling. Gunasekara is one of the architects behind Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint that includes rolling back policies that have aided Black economic and social gains. The Biden administration said that overruling the doctrine would be a “convulsive shock to the legal system” that would lead to hundreds of plaintiffs suing to challenge past and future rules and regulations.
Project 2025 champions the gutting of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration’s wide-ranging law that would generate millions of climate-friendly jobs over the next 10 years. The policy agenda also advises eviscerating greenhouse gas regulations and clean energy programs. But the impact of these moves wouldn’t be felt evenly.
We’ve previously reported that “low-income Black people are exposed to the most pollution from power plants 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 Erode Black Equality
Regardless of who is elected in November, it could mean a complete reversal of the country’s recent moves to lower pollution and mitigate some of the worst effects of climate change. But it doesn’t just impact the environment. This means that private companies will have an easier path to challenge regulations related to health care, labor rights, the food we eat, and how we’re taxed, just to name a few.
“We really take for granted how many lives are saved by the regulatory state,” Coupet said, from ensuring chemicals aren’t drenching our food to the cleanliness of our water. “This decision might kill millions.”
In terms of the environment, the issue is that Congress and members of the courts often lack the scientific knowledge to guide these regulations, which will allow polluters to have a greater opportunity to shape how these regulations are actually implemented. Climate Justice Alliance, which comprises dozens of environmental groups nationwide, said the court’s ruling proves an “allegiance to big business and polluters, rather than frontline communities.”
In another ruling last week, the court blocked an EPA plan to reduce air pollution that blows across state lines. The decision blocked the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, which requires the country’s 23 states that are “upwind” to lower their air pollution that is often pushed into neighboring states. In a rare instance, the court blocked the regulations before lower courts could rule on the case.
With these rulings, Yeampierre said, “We are going back in time and headed down an even more harmful path for everyday people.”
