JUDY WOODRUFF: The U.S. Supreme Court has wrapped up a term that rewrote the law
books on abortion, guns and today on climate change and migrant asylum policy.
That, in turn, set the stage for a bit more history. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson became
the first Black woman to serve on the court, sworn in by Justice Stephen Breyer, who today retired.
Meanwhile, in Spain, President Biden charged that this court, through its recent
anti-abortion ruling, has become a bigger threat to the country than inflation is.
JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: The one thing that has been destabilizing is
the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States
on overruling not only Roe v. Wade, but essentially challenging the right to privacy.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Back now to today's court rulings, correspondent John Yang is here to
unpack the decisions, beginning with West Virginia's win over the EPA.
JOHN YANG: Judy, in that case, the court said the Clean Air Act does
not give the EPA the authority to impose standards
intended to shift power utilities from gas and coal-fired plants to solar and wind generation.
The vote was 6-3, with the conservative justices in the majority and the liberals dissenting.
Marcia Coyle is chief Washington correspondent for "The National Law Journal."
Marcia, what does this decision mean for the EPA's ability
to write regulations in the future, not just on climate change, but on anything else?
MARCIA COYLE, "The National Law Journal": The court's decision
restricts or limits EPA's flexibility to engage in sort of broad-based or systemic
approaches to greenhouse gases and its attempt to deal with the problem of climate change.
So it's mostly a lack of flexibility and perhaps a warning when it attempts to make
other arrangements to go after greenhouse gases that the court is going to be watching closely.
JOHN YANG: Chief Justice John Roberts wrote this opinion.
What was his reasoning?
MARCIA COYLE: The chief justice said that, under this particular prevision,
what EPA was trying to do was such a national transformational approach to going after
greenhouse gas emissions that it required clear authority from Congress to do so.
And so, in his opinion, he looked for that authority
either in the provision itself or in the statute and said that there was no such authority.
And he said that, when an agency is going to engage in rulemaking or regulation
that has such major significance, economic significance, political significance,
other major consequences, that there has to be a clear directive from Congress.
JOHN YANG: So, this could apply to other agencies and rulemaking in other areas?
MARCIA COYLE: Absolutely, John, because what the conservative majority did here basically
was to adopt a doctrine known as the major questions doctrine.
It's a doctrine that's been promoted by businesses and conservative advocates,
who believe that the federal regulatory state
has grown too big and gone too far in regulating public health and safety.
JOHN YANG: As a matter of fact, Chief John Roberts opinion used the phrase the administrative state.
MARCIA COYLE: In fact, the dissent by Justice
Kagan accused the majority of an anti -- of taking an anti-administrative stance here.
She said that, even though the chief justice claimed it was implausible
that EPA had this authority without Congress' clear directive,
she said it was perfectly plausible, because Congress had told EPA to choose the best system.
And she repeated that language in the provision, best system, she said, no ifs, ands, or buts.
JOHN YANG: And there was another decision today in the court's final decision of the year.
The court ruled for the Biden administration,
saying it had the authority to reverse the Trump administration's policy requiring asylum seekers
to remain in Mexico while their cases are being considered.
Now, in this case, Marcia, we didn't see
the ideological breakdown. As a matter of fact, Chief Justice John Roberts
and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberals to create the five-justice majority.
What does that tell us about the reasoning -- the court's reasoning in this case?
MARCIA COYLE: It's not been terribly surprised thing when the chief justice
and Justice Kavanaugh have joined with the three liberals on the court to form a majority.
So I'm not -- I think it really is something that depends on the case, as well as the issue and the
arguments that are made, and the government was more convincing here. And so was the statute.
The chief justice was looking at a provision
in the -- in federal immigration law that gave the secretary of homeland security discretion.
It said, the secretary may return aliens who enter this country from contiguous countries,
while -- it can return them to those countries while awaiting their asylum proceedings.
And the chief justice said, look, the statute says
may return. And he just said may means may. And it doesn't suddenly become mandatory
just because -- not just because, but because the administration is violating mandatory detention.
And, as he pointed out, and as Texas agreed during oral argument, no administration has been
able to comply with mandatory detention because Congress has never supplied the department with
the resources, the money or the beds, to detain every illegal immigrant that enters our country.
JOHN YANG: And what did the dissenters in that case say?
MARCIA COYLE: Well, Justice Alito wrote the lead dissent.
And he said -- he agreed that the government cannot detain every illegal immigrant that
enters the country. But he said it had two alternative choices. It could
send them back to Mexico, or it could, under the law, release them into the United States.
And he said that the government has chosen to totally ignore
the return to Mexico and instead is releasing countless immigrants into this country.
JOHN YANG: Marcia Coyle of "The National Law Journal"
on this final day of this most interesting Supreme Court term, thank you very much.
MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure, John.