Picture a scene where the highest court in the land is likened to predators circling the remains of environmental protections. It’s a scenario that’s not just a flight of fancy; it’s a real possibility that we’re facing as we look ahead at the conservative super-majority’s stance on regulatory agencies. Sure, it’s not set in stone, but let’s just say the writing’s on the wall, and it’s not spelling out a happy ending for environmental law.
The Potential Downfall of Agency Authority
Let’s take a peek at the worst-case scenario, which isn’t too tough to conjure up if you’ve been following the Court’s recent moves. Take the West Virginia v. EPA case, for instance—a real humdinger that trimmed the sails of agency power. And if the Court decides to toss out the Chevron deference this year, well, that’s just another step on a not-so-merry path. We’ve seen opinions soaked in anti-regulatory sentiment, and the Court’s ultraconservative trio—Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—are champing at the bit to dismantle a century’s worth of federal regulations. The thought that they might sway two more votes to their cause isn’t beyond the realm of possibility.
The Conservative Justices’ Balancing Act
But here’s the rub: the hardline justices need to net two more votes—or, to flip the script, they can only afford to lose one vote from the trio of Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. With two of these justices being fresh-faced additions to the Court and one, Barrett, not having a deep bench of administrative law decisions, the plot thickens. Sure, they’re not exactly cheerleaders for government regulation—except maybe when it comes to abortion and immigration—but it’s anyone’s guess how far they’ll go to etch their preferences into the law.
There’s been a concerted push to stack the bench with conservative judges who toe the line without a second thought. But humans, as we know, are wild cards. They don’t always play by the script, which means we can’t bank on them acting the same way when the game changes. Yogi Berra hit the nail on the head when he said predicting the future is a tricky business, and that holds just as true for the courts as it does for baseball.
Resisting the Urge to Predict Doom
Human nature has us believing that what’s happening now will keep on happening forever. In the absence of other clues, that’s not the worst strategy, at least in the short term. But it’s led us down the wrong path before, whether we’re guessing next year’s oil prices or the sales of electric cars—or, say, betting against a reality TV star taking the Oval Office.
I’m not saying the collapse of the regulatory state is a fairy tale. Far from it—it’s a real enough threat to keep us up at night. But as Yogi Berra and common sense remind us, we shouldn’t count our chickens—or in this case, our vulture eggs—before they’ve hatched.
Why Hope for Regulatory Resilience is Not Lost
Why does this matter? Well, for starters, we might be wallowing in more doom and gloom than the situation warrants. More importantly, though, if we throw in the towel on federal regulations too soon, we’re missing out. We’re overlooking the chance to fight tooth and nail against the notions we fear will shape the legal landscape of tomorrow. The battle for a robust regulatory state is far from over, and it’s way too early to wave the white flag.
So, as we stand at this crossroads, it’s crucial to keep a watchful eye on the court’s movements while remaining steadfast in our advocacy for environmental laws and climate policies. The future may be uncertain, but our resolve to influence it should be anything but.
Did you miss our previous article…
https://pardonresearch.com/?p=3491