Neil Gorsuch on Climate Change
TL;DR
Neil Gorsuch's judicial philosophy strongly favors limiting federal agency authority to address climate change via regulation.
Key Points
He joined the majority in West Virginia v. EPA (2022), limiting the EPA's authority to use Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to implement the Clean Power Plan.
Justice Gorsuch expressed strong concerns about the Major Questions Doctrine in his concurrence in West Virginia v. EPA, emphasizing that significant lawmaking should be done by legislatures, not agencies.
His judicial philosophy suggests a consistent voting tendency against legal positions favored by environmentalists, with an estimated Environmental Protection score of 33.3% in relevant cases since 2017.
Summary
Neil Gorsuch's position on Climate Change is primarily expressed through his jurisprudence, which focuses heavily on separation of powers and limiting the authority of federal administrative agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to issue broad regulations. He is known for his skepticism regarding expansive agency power, particularly evidenced by his support for the Major Questions Doctrine, which requires clear Congressional authorization for regulations of vast economic and political significance. This stance was visible in cases like West Virginia v. EPA, where the Court curtailed the EPA’s authority to mandate shifts in power generation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a decision where Gorsuch wrote separately to stress constitutional guarantees against agency overreach.
His judicial focus on federalism and individual liberty also implies skepticism toward broad federal climate action, as he views expansive regulatory actions as potential intrusions on personal autonomy and property rights. Furthermore, his jurisprudence suggests a preference for narrower readings of environmental statutes, as seen in his concurrence in Sackett v. EPA, which limited the scope of the Clean Water Act, potentially undermining federal authority to regulate environmental issues that cross state lines or involve complex ecological relationships. While some opinions may align with environmental outcomes on federalism grounds, such as curtailing Dormant Commerce Clause review, his core judicial philosophy consistently checks the executive branch's ability to unilaterally tackle complex issues like global warming without explicit legislative direction.
Frequently Asked Questions
Justice Neil Gorsuch's position is primarily reflected in his strict judicial adherence to the separation of powers, which makes him skeptical of broad, expansive regulations by agencies like the EPA to combat climate change. He favors the Major Questions Doctrine, requiring clear authorization from Congress for such significant policy shifts.
Yes, Neil Gorsuch joined the 6-3 majority in West Virginia v. EPA that curtailed the agency's authority to enforce industry-wide measures aimed at reducing carbon pollution from power plants. He supported the view that such a massive regulatory shift required more explicit direction from Congress.
Justice Gorsuch has demonstrated a strong desire to limit or overrule Chevron deference, which requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes. He views such deference as an abdication of core judicial power, which is particularly relevant when agencies try to apply older environmental statutes to new problems like climate change.
Sources7
How Justice Gorsuch Helped Save Us from a “Climate Emergency”
Justice Gorsuch and the Future of Environmental Law
Supreme Court curtails EPA's authority to fight climate change - SCOTUSblog
Predicting How Neil Gorsuch Would Rule on Environmental Issues
The Supreme Court and Radical Environmental Deregulation
Congressman Johnson Leads Letter Urging Gorsuch To Recuse in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colo.
Analysis: Gorsuch Appointment to Supreme Court Would Undermine Climate, Environment, Civil Rights, Social Justice
* This is not an exhaustive list of sources.