From WNYC Studios, it's Brian Lair, a daily politics podcast. It's Thursday, June 23rd.

One consequential ruling yet to be issued by the Supreme Court, it's over the EPA's

authority on climate change, and this could

come down any day. West Virginia versus Environmental Protection Agency is about whether the executive

branch should have the authority to establish regulations for greenhouse gas emissions, or whether

that power should rest with Congress. Climate concerned citizens and experts in

environmental law worry that a ruling against the EPA could leave the agency significantly

weaker with respect to climate. We'll get into the specifics of this case and talk about the

possible ramifications of a sweeping ruling against the EPA now with Michael Gerard, Professor of Law at the Columbia

University Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change

Law. Hi, Professor Gerard. Welcome back to WN.N.Y.C. Good morning, Brian. And even though you're

an environmental law professor, you do teach at the Columbia University Law School.

I'm sure you and your colleagues have been talking about this gun case in addition to everything else that's going on.

Is there any quick reaction, any thought?

I don't want to dwell on it because I do want to do our climate story of the week with you.

But is there anything that you might have to add

that we might not have thought of yet in the very first cursory reading of this decision?

Well, Jeff said it's more confirmation of the hard right turn that the current Supreme Court has

taken, even though the dissent are written by written by Justice Breyer, talked at length about

Yuvaldi and Buffalo and all the other terrible things would have been happening, the majority

didn't care. They were impervious to that. They had their view about the absolutism of the

Second Amendment, and so be it. West Virginia versus Environmental Protection Agency. What's the background on this case?

...