A major ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court Friday that weakened the ability of federal agencies to set rules on the environment, drug safety, consumer protections and other areas could have impacts in California — from vehicle pollution standards to oil and gas drilling on public lands — even though California has its own state laws that are tougher than those in other states and the federal government.
“The decision is an earthquake in U.S. law,” said attorney Michael Wara, director of Stanford University’s Climate and Energy Policy Program, “impacting every single thing, especially every new thing, that any federal agency might want to do to address new problems they are seeking to solve.”
Delivering a major win for big business in a 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority overturned a 1984 Supreme Court decision commonly known as the “Chevron doctrine.” In that case involving the San Ramon-based oil giant, the Supreme Court ruled 40 years ago that judges in lower courts should defer to federal agencies like the EPA and FDA if laws passed by Congress are not clear.
That case is one of the most often cited cases in administrative law. Environmental groups, trial attorneys, unions and others have said it is critical because issues change faster than Congress can update laws, particularly in an era of partisan gridlock. Conservatives and industry said it gave too much power to bureaucracies.
At first glance, California would seem to be immune from much of the ruling, particularly on the environment. Over the past 50 years, state lawmakers have passed tougher regulations in air pollution, water pollution, endangered species protections, climate change and other areas than the federal government has. Friday’s decision only affects federal agencies, not state agencies.
But many of California’s environmental protections come from federal laws, experts said Friday.
“California has a wonderful tradition of strong environmental laws, but the state still depends on the federal Clean Air Act, the federal Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and all sorts of other laws,” said Sanjay Narayan, chief appellate counsel with the Sierra Club, based in Oakland.
And how some issues are regulated nationally, like climate change, have impacts in California, he added.
“Climate change impacts wildfires in the state, and sea level rise,” he said. “Federal laws matter to California.”
Further, nearly 50% of all the land in California is owned by the federal government, including tens of millions of acres of national forests, national parks, wildlife refuges and military bases where the state has little to no jurisdiction over federal rules on logging, mining, oil and gas drilling and cattle grazing.
In some areas, such as railroad safety, airplane safety and telecommunications law, federal laws pre-empt California’s state laws. In 1991, a train derailed near Mount Shasta in Dunsmuir, dumping 19,000 gallons of toxic soil fumigants into the Sacramento River. More than 1 million fish and tens of thousands of other animals died.
California attempted to pass tougher safety rules on trains, but after the rail industry sued, courts found that only the federal government and federal agencies could impose such rules so there aren’t 50 different sets for every state.
Friday’s ruling began when four fishing families in New Jersey sued the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, saying they shouldn’t have to pay a $700 per day fee for federal observers on their boats to monitor overfishing that the agency required as a way to enforce a broader law passed by Congress. The fishing families won.
Conservatives on Friday celebrated.
“The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to make law,” said Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. “After 40 years of Chevron deference, the Supreme Court made it clear today that our system of government leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to co-opt this authority for itself.”
Suzanne Clark, CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said: “Today’s decision is an important course correction that will help create a more predictable and stable regulatory environment.”
But consumer and environmental advocates disagreed.
“This is an outrageous decision,” said Joe Cotchett, a prominent trial attorney based in Burlingame. “Congress passes a law, and they give it to an agency to carry it out. Congress can’t write the details of specific environmental laws. This is part of a conservative movement to get corporate America out from environmental laws. It is going to affect clean air, our environment, even when consumer agencies can say ‘you can’t sell a harmful product or drug.’ It is devastating.”
One key area that may be affected is California’s ability to set tougher tailpipe pollution laws for vehicles. The federal Clean Air Act allows that as long as the U.S. E.P.A. grants permission. Mary Nichols, a law professor at UCLA, and former head of California’s Air Resources Board, said there has been a long history of the E.P.A. granting that permission and that courts have generally supported it.
“California is it’s own island,” Nichols said. “Any progress and positive action on the environment will be left up to the states. That’s how it worked when Trump was president the last time. He did his best to undercut existing federal laws, but states with tougher environmental laws came out ahead.”
However, given that California is also regulating greenhouse gases through its tailpipe standards, something the 1970 Clean Air Act didn’t specifically discuss, “California’s broad approach to vehicle regulations may well be preempted by federal law,” said Scott Seagal, a partner with Bracewell LLC, a Houston-based law firm that does legal work, lobbying and public relations for oil companies, renewable energy companies, and the construction, healthcare and real estate industries.
David Doniger, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council who argued the original case in 1984, said Friday’s ruling will give broad new powers to courts, over scientists and others in government agencies.
“The world is unpredictable,” he said. “Who predicted Covid? Who saw global warming coming? It’s hard for Congress to keep up. It doesn’t have the bandwidth to update major laws month by month. It’s been 34 years since a comprehensive review of the Clean Air Act.”
