This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Thursday, June 30, 2022.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Today's Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency

says the agency can't give itself major power through bold

interpretations of vague old laws.

Chief Justice Roberts detailed a new major questions framework that mirrors those laid out in the Cato Institute's brief in the case.

Will Yeatman, the author of that brief, explains what the case means.

Going back in time a little bit, the Supreme Court at one point said that carbon dioxide and other

Chemicals in the air could be treated as pollutants by the EPA and would be

Regulable under the Clean Air Act.

What did that set the stage for here?

Well, that established that EPA had the authority

under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases to fight climate change.

That issue in West Virginia, the EPA was a distinct question.

How it exercises that authority.

The Chief Justice wrote the opinion.

Who was he joined by?

He was joined by, I guess, what are known as the conservative justices or those that were appointed by

Republican presidents. I think in the minority or in the dissent was Kagan

Breyer and Sotomayor so the the sixth that were not those three.

So this is basically how you might expect a case like this to line up.

Well, indeed.

...