Hey, drilled listeners and damages listeners. This is a special episode that's dropping

in both feeds because there's some big important legal news happening in the climate world

this week. On Monday morning this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the

West Virginia versus EPA case. This is a very weird situation. The case started as an argument

about the clean power plan. That's an Obama administration policy that was in fact never

implemented. Why is this case moving forward? Good question.

Supreme Court could still decide not to rule in the case. That's an argument that was

made by the EPA that this case really shouldn't be in the courts anymore. But they spent

an awful lot of time asking questions so that seems unlikely. The good news is they don't

seem inclined to chuck out previous rulings like AEP versus Connecticut and Massachusetts

versus EPA, which had to do with whether or not the EPA was allowed to regulate greenhouse

gases. That's good. That was a big fear going into this.

The bad news. This obscure law that used to almost never come up in the Supreme Court,

suddenly has been a lot in the last couple of years. Came up a bunch, especially in the

conservative justices questioning. That law is called the major questions doctrine.

Sounds really boring. Possibly pretty scary. We're going to get into that and what happened

in this case and what could happen, what it all means with a couple of experts, Jason

Rylander from the Center for Biological Diversity and Richard Reves, a professor at New York

and Richard Reves, professor at NYU Law. And of course, I got up early to stream the

oral arguments and tape them. So we'll give you a little taste of what folks were saying

in court too. That's all coming up after this quick break. I'm Amy Westervelt and this

is drilled and or damages depending on where it's made.

...