Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in as SCOTUS issues major rulings on climate and immigration

West Virginia Governor Jim Justice celebrated Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that curbed the EPA’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants.

"Instead, members of Congress who have been duly elected to represent the will of the people across all of America will be allowed to have a rightful say when it comes to balancing our desire for a clean environment with our need for energy and the security it provides us,” he added.

Justice noted that his state is one of a few in the nation “where all agency regulations must be approved by a vote of the state legislature before they take effect,” and is happy to see the federal government following a similar model.

“This ruling will have a positive impact on our country for generations to come and I’m proud that West Virginia was the state leading the way in this landmark case,” he said.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey called the ruling "a great win" for the state.

“We are pleased this case returned the power to decide one of the major environmental issues of the day to the right place to decide it: the U.S. Congress, comprised of those elected by the people to serve the people,” Morrisey said in a statement. “This is about maintaining the separation of powers, not climate change. Today, the Court made the correct decision to rein in the EPA, an unelected bureaucracy. And we’re not done. My office will continue to fight for the rights of West Virginians when those in Washington try to go too far in asserting broad powers without the people’s support.”

"EPA’s actions would intrude on the states’ traditional authority to regulate their own power grids. Yet no federal law includes such a clear statement allowing that kind of intrusion," his statement continued.

The Supreme Court on Thursday curbed the EPA’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a defeat for the Biden administration’s attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.

In addition, the court cut back the agency's authority in general, invoking the so-called “major questions” doctrine – a ruling that could impact the authority of all federal agencies to regulate in other areas of policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety.

“Under our precedents, this is a major questions case,” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion. “There is little reason to think Congress assigned such decisions to the Agency.”

The decision will send shock waves across other agencies, threatening agency action that comes without clear congressional authorization.

“It would be one thing if Congress could be expected to respond to this ruling by updating all of those delegations to make them more specific, but we – and the Court – know that it won’t, which will almost surely lead to significant deregulation across a wide swath of federal authority,” Vladeck added.

The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants.

The ruling was 6-3. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the conservative majority, with the three liberal justices dissenting. 

Roberts said that "our precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA's claim" that the law "empowers it to devise carbon emissions caps based on a generation shifting approach."

Roberts wrote that capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal may be a "sensible" solution.

"But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme" under the law in question.

"A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body," he wrote.

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave President Biden the green light to end the controversial “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy that originated under the Trump administration. 

Since the beginning of his administration, Biden has tried to wind down the policy, which sends certain non-Mexican citizens who entered the US back to Mexico — instead of detaining them or releasing them into the United States — while their immigration proceedings played out.

Biden's bid to terminate the program had been challenged in court by a coalition of red states led by Texas that argued that ending it ran afoul of immigration law. They also argued that administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act — which requires that agencies take certain procedural steps when implementing policy — in how it went about unwinding the program, formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols.

The program, which was first implemented in 2019 under then-President Donald Trump, has been criticized by immigrant-rights advocates, who argue that it's inhumane and that it exposes asylum seekers with credible claims to dangerous and squalid conditions in Mexico.

Before the Trump administration put the "Remain in Mexico" program in place, no other administration had embraced such an approach toward non-Mexican asylum-seekers that required them to stay in Mexico over the course of their immigration court proceedings in the United States. Biden campaigned on ending the policy and has said it "goes against everything we stand for as a nation of immigrants."

Biden has grappled with a growing number of border crossings over the course of his administration amid mass migration in the Western hemisphere. Since October, border authorities have encountered migrants more than a million times along the US-Mexico border, though many have been turned away under a separate pandemic-emergency rule. The Department of Homeland Security, though, has maintained that the "Remain in Mexico" policy comes at a steep human cost and is not an effective use of resources.

Read more about the ruling here.

The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.

In addition, the court cut back the agency's authority in general invoking the so-called "major questions" doctrine — a ruling that will impact the federal government's authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety. 

The ruling was 6-3. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the conservative majority, with the three liberal justices dissenting.

The decision is one of the most consequential cases for climate change and clean air in decades.

Although the Supreme Court issued the two most important opinions of the term last week, upending near 50-year-old precedent on abortion and expanding gun rights for the first time in a decade, this blockbuster term is not over.

Still to be decided are two cases, here's a look at what remains:

Immigration: Remain in Mexico

The justices are considering whether the Biden administration can terminate a Trump-era border policy known as "Remain in Mexico." Lower courts have so far blocked Biden from ending the policy.

Under the unprecedented program launched in 2019, the Department of Homeland Security can send certain-non Mexican citizens who entered the United States back to Mexico — instead of detaining them or releasing them into the United States — while their immigration proceedings play out.

Critics call the policy inhumane and say it exposes asylum seekers with credible claims to dangerous and squalid conditions. The case raises questions not only regarding immigration law, but also a president's control over policy and his diplomatic relationships with neighboring countries.

Climate Change: EPA authority to regulate emissions from power plants

The justices will decide a case concerning the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, in a dispute that could harm the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions. It comes at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.

The court's decision to step in and hear the case concerned environmentalists because there is no rule currently in place. A lower court wiped away a Trump-era rule in 2021 and the Biden administration's EPA is currently working on a new rule.

But the fact that there were enough votes to take up the issue now, struck some as an aggressive grant, signaling the court wants to limit the scope of the EPA's authority even before a new rule is on the books.

Justice Stephen Breyer notified the White House on Wednesday that his retirement will be effective Thursday, June 30, at noon ET.

In a letter to President Joe Biden, Breyer said it had been his "great honor" to participate as a judge in the "effort to maintain our Constitution and the Rule of Law."

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will take the oaths on Thursday to begin her service as the 116th member of the court. Breyer said Wednesday that Jackson is prepared to “take the prescribed oaths."

On his last full day as a sitting justice, Breyer attended a private conference session with his colleagues Wednesday. The justices reviewed a list of pending petitions, some tied to cases in which they had recently ruled, some related to new issues.

Following tradition, Breyer will keep an office at the court, though he will move into smaller chambers

The fact that the court will issue final opinions and orders on the same day reflects a more expedited timeline than past terms. It suggests that the justices — who have been subject to death threats since the release of a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade are eager for the momentous and divisive term to end as soon as possible.

There are two big cases awaiting resolution concerning the environment and immigration.

Jackson, Breyer's replacement, was confirmed by the Senate in April by a vote of 53-47, with three Republicans joining Democrats to vote in favor. Though her addition to the bench doesn't change the ideological balance of the court, Jackson will be the first Black woman to serve on the highest court in the nation.

President Biden indicated Thursday that he supports an exception to the 60-vote threshold needed to advance legislation in the Senate to codify abortion and privacy rights following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade.

Pressed moments later to clarify that he was opening to changing filibuster rules for those issues, Biden said, “Right to privacy, not just abortion rights, but yes, abortion rights.”

Codifying Roe v. Wade requires 60 votes in the Senate, which it does not currently have, unless the filibuster rules are changed to require a simple majority. Key moderate Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have expressed opposition to changing filibuster rules. Manchin, however, is open to codifying Roe v. Wade legislatively. 

Biden also said he would be meeting with governors Friday to receive their feedback and would have “announcements to make then.”

“The first and foremost thing we should do is make it clear how outrageous this decision was and how much it impacts not just on a woman's right to choose, which is a critical, critical piece, but on privacy generally, on privacy generally. And so I'm going to be talking to the governors as to what actions they think I should be taking, as well. But the most important thing to be clear about: we have to change, I believe we have to codify Roe v Wade in the law,” he said.

More context: There has been no indication those two senators, Manchin and Sinema, have or will change their positions.

But Biden’s call does dovetail with the White House efforts to ramp up the urgency in advance of the midterm elections – and it comes as national Democrats have increasingly raised concerns that the Biden administration is not doing enough to address – and fight – the Supreme Court decision.

Despite flagging poll numbers and poor prospects in holding onto the Democratic majority in the House, the White House sees a path to gaining Senate seats to increase their narrow majority.

Holding their current seats and adding at least two new Democratic senators could, in theory, create the pathway to securing the votes for a Senate rules change.

President Biden disputed characterizations that America is going backward amid a new low approval rating, inflation, and other domestic issues. Asked how he reconciles those problems to the world leaders he’s met with this week during the NATO summit, Biden pushed back, but conceded the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was “destabilizing" and called the court's actions "outrageous behavior."

Biden continued to lambast the court’s decision.

“We've been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights and privacy rights. And it is a mistake, in my view, for the Supreme Court to do what it did,” he said, later calling on Congress to codify the landmark women’s reproductive rights ruling.