· organisation

Neil Gorsuch on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Skeptic of broad EPA power (strong)

TL;DR

Justice Gorsuch strongly advocates for limiting the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory authority based on separation of powers and statutory text.

Key Points

He joined the majority in West Virginia v. EPA (2022) to embrace the Major Questions Doctrine, constraining EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases without explicit congressional text.
Justice Gorsuch provided one of the five necessary votes in Sackett v. EPA (2023), which significantly restricted the definition of 'waters of the United States' under the Clean Water Act, narrowing EPA's jurisdiction.
While on the Tenth Circuit, he questioned the constitutionality of broad deference to agency interpretations, suggesting the time had come to "face the behemoth" of the Chevron doctrine.

Summary

Justice Neil Gorsuch consistently demonstrates a view that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) often exceeds the scope of authority granted by Congress, a position rooted in his strong commitment to the separation of powers and textualist statutory interpretation. This stance was evident both before and after his appointment to the Supreme Court, where he has joined majorities in rulings that significantly curtail agency power. He specifically questions the judicial deference afforded to agency interpretations under the now-diminished Chevron doctrine, viewing expansive agency power as a threat to individual liberty and constitutional design. In his view, major policy decisions, such as those related to climate change, require clear, specific authorization from the legislature, not expansive interpretation by an executive agency like the EPA.

This judicial skepticism has translated into significant practical limitations on the agency's regulatory reach. His jurisprudence supports the Major Questions Doctrine, which demands clear congressional authorization for regulations of vast economic and political significance, such as the EPA's past efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, Gorsuch was a decisive vote in the Supreme Court's ruling that dramatically narrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act by reinterpreting "waters of the United States," thereby reducing the geographic area over which the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers can assert jurisdiction over wetlands and streams. His consistent judicial philosophy prioritizes narrow statutory interpretation over agency expertise in environmental matters.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Neil Gorsuch's general stance on the EPA?

Justice Gorsuch generally adopts a skeptical stance toward the expansive regulatory authority claimed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He argues that the agency's power must be strictly limited by the plain text of statutes passed by Congress, reflecting his concern for separation of powers. This tendency leads him to favor interpretations that restrict the reach of environmental regulations.

How did Justice Gorsuch vote in major EPA cases?

Neil Gorsuch was in the majority for major rulings that limited the EPA, such as in West Virginia v. EPA, where the Court curtailed its authority to regulate power plant emissions. He also joined the majority in Sackett v. EPA, which significantly reduced the scope of the Clean Water Act's jurisdictional reach over wetlands and streams.

Has Justice Gorsuch's view on the EPA been consistent?

The Justice's position against broad agency power, stemming from his judicial philosophy, appears consistent from his time on the Tenth Circuit to the Supreme Court. His opposition to broad judicial deference to agencies like the EPA under the Chevron doctrine, which he criticized before his elevation, foreshadowed his later votes restricting agency rulemaking authority.