Image 01 Image 03

Supreme Court Aborts The Green New Deal, Strikes Down EPA’s Carbon-Emission Power Grab

Supreme Court Aborts The Green New Deal, Strikes Down EPA’s Carbon-Emission Power Grab

Chief Justice Roberts for the 6-3 Majority – “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” …. But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme ….”

Maybe it’s not as big a decision in the public mind as the SCOTUS decisions this term on Abortion and the 2nd Amendment. But it’s a big one, bigly and big league.

The United States Supreme Court, in a majority Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, just ripped the heart out of the Green New Deal agenda which was being carried forward not by act of Congress, but by administrative fiat through the Environmental Protection Agency. Not being able to pass legislation to decarbonize the economy, Democrats relied on agency action.

The case is West Virginia v. EPA (Docket) where the Questions Presented were:

In 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the Clean Air Act, did Congress constitutionally authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant rules including those capable of reshaping the nation’s electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy-without any limits on what the agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair impacts, and energy requirements?

That sounds dry, but it’s a big ****ing deal, as Politico noted it goes even beyond regulating carbon emissions and goes to the heart of the ever-expanding administrative state, How SCOTUS’ upcoming climate ruling could defang Washington:

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling this month hobbling the Biden administration’s efforts to rein in greenhouse gases — but its impact could weaken Washington’s power to oversee wide swaths of American life well beyond climate change.

The upcoming decision on the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate oversight offers the conservative justices an opportunity to undermine federal regulations on a host of issues, from drug pricing and financial regulations to net neutrality. Critics of the EPA have clamored for the high court to do just that, by declaring it unlawful for federal agencies to make “major” decisions without clear authorization from Congress.

The Supreme Court and several Republican-appointed judges have invoked the same principle repeatedly during the past year to strike down a series of Biden administration responses to the coronavirus pandemic. Liberal legal scholars worry that the EPA case could yield an aggressive version of that thinking — unraveling much of the regulatory state as it has existed since the New Deal.

From the majority Opinion:

The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plants by setting a “standard of performance” for their emission of certain pollutants into the air. 84 Stat. 1683, 42 U. S. C. §7411(a)(1). That standard may be different for new and existing plants, but in each case it must reflect the “best system of emission reduction” that the Agency has determined to be “adequately demonstrated” for the particular category. §§7411(a)(1), (b)(1), (d). For existing plants, the States then implement that requirement by issuing rules restricting emissions from sources within their borders.

Since passage of the Act 50 years ago, EPA has exercised this authority by setting performance standards based on measures that would reduce pollution by causing plants to operate more cleanly. In 2015, however, EPA issued a new rule concluding that the “best system of emission reduction” for existing coal-fired power plants included a requirement that such facilities reduce their own production of electricity, or subsidize increased generation by natural gas, wind, or solar sources.

The question before us is whether this broader conception of EPA’s authority is within the power granted to it by the Clean Air Act.

* * *

Given these circumstances, our precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA’s claim that Section 111 empowers it to devise carbon emissions caps based on a generation shifting approach. To overcome that skepticism, the Government must—under the major questions doctrine—point to “clear congressional authorization” to regulate in that manner. Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324. All the Government can offer, however, is the Agency’s authority to establish emissions caps at a level reflecting “the application of the best system of emission reduction . . . adequately demonstrated.” 42 U. S. C. §7411(a)(1). As a matter of “definitional possibilities,” FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U. S. 397, 407 (2011), generation shifting can be described as a “system”—“an aggregation or assemblage of objects united by some form of regular interaction,” Brief for Federal Respondents 31—capable of reducing emissions. But of course almost anything could constitute such a “system”; shorn of all context, the word is an empty vessel. Such a vague statutory grant is not close to the sort of clear authorization required by our precedents.

* * *

Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

What a fitting end to the term.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Close The Fed | June 30, 2022 at 10:20 am

Great. SUPER. Thank you, Donald Trump!

Great! We are on roll

Watch out for your very lives SC Justice’s, you know which ones…

I really think they told Roberts, we are going to do these things with you or without you

    guyjones in reply to gonzotx. | June 30, 2022 at 1:13 pm

    Roberts’ incoherent and waffling concurrence in Dobbs captures the quintessence of his character– greasy, unprincipled, capricious and politically-motivated in his so-called “jurisprudence.”

    It’s clear as day that the only reason that Roberts joined the majority opinion in Dobbs was to create a 6-3 majority, as opposed to a 5-4 majority. He believe that his vote would give the majority opinion extra heft and legitimacy. No matter that the vile Dumb-o-crats would erupt in their usual paroxysms of infantile, unfettered and vindictive rage and violence.

      retiredcantbefired in reply to guyjones. | June 30, 2022 at 4:45 pm

      Roberts, a master of strategic illogic, would have been happy with a majority ruling in favor of the state of Mississippi while a majority also insisted that Roe v. Wade still stood. He couldn’t find another Justice to join him, and the leak of Alito’s draft opinion didn’t succeed in intimidating another Justice to join him.

      coyote in reply to guyjones. | July 1, 2022 at 11:06 am

      I remember when Roberts was in hearings for his appointment. The female talking heads were saying, “Oh me, oh my. It’s not just that he’s conservative, but that he’s so very conservative.”

      Really stupid.

Oh boy, street sweepers will be at it again cleaning up the litter from Donkeys on laxatives. Roe and now this. Congress has the authority you clowns, not an agency of the administrative branch.

Time to apply the same logic to ATF over-reach. They have been making edicts out of whole cloth.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to bigskydoc. | June 30, 2022 at 6:09 pm

    Are there any cases under consideration for the next session?

      Not that I can find but I can find a rule changing the meaning of “gun” to include unfinished lowers that they just banned that should be immediately challenged and overturned. SEC with it’s ESG mandates, ATF with it’s arbitrary and shifting rules, Judiciary with it’s partisan picking of who gets persecuted and who flies scot free… All should be examined and the people in charge that approved this overreach immediately fired

taurus the judge | June 30, 2022 at 10:42 am

We seem to have won more than we lost this go around ( that’s a great thing)

No laurel resting, we MUST press the advantage and cull the RINO

Does this have any implications for the ESG mandates being imposed on publicly-traded companies including being responsible to produce information of non-publicly-traded companies they do business with?

There have also been a couple of large fines imposed this week on big banks failing to properly supervise compliance over their mutual fund accounting over ESG. Also, I think it was Price Waterhouse (one of the big four) being fined for similar violations in auditing companies over ESG compliance. It’s an impossible and expensive requirement.


“That sounds dry, but it’s a big ****ing deal,…”

Who wrote this? Mrs Jacobson?

It’s about time the court reigned them in.


(We all know what that sound is.)

EPA regulations have been out of control for a long time. I was stationed in El Paso in 1990 and had to have my car smog tested. I asked the mechanic why? He told me that only 4 counties/cities in Texas had to have the testing done. Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio, Houston and El Paso, it was an EPA requirement as they had air quality below standards. I looked out the door of the garage towards Mexico where they were burning garbage and tires. I declined the testing and had my car registered in Tennessee.

I agree that this is huge.
IMO, this is probably bigger than the rollback of Roe v. Wade.

    smalltownoklahoman in reply to Exiliado. | June 30, 2022 at 5:53 pm

    Oh yes it is! Because this decision WILL affect energy policy which is something that affects all of our day to day lives constantly. Not to mention it sets a precedent for rolling back overreach from a number of other Federal regulatory authorities. I think it was kinda smart that the Supremes held this one back a few days, it let the activists expend their drama and energy on the big cases that people were expecting.

Huge blow to the administrative state of federal bureaucrats habit of claiming authority they don’t possess. The concurrence is even more stark.

The theme for this term seems to be that SCOTUS and therefore the lower CTs who are bound by it’s decisions will be asking or forced to ask by SCOTUS a series of basic questions re govt action:
1. Is the action part of explicit Constitutional text
2. If not is there a broad and long history to support it
3. Is there an explicit grant of authority from Congress

If the answer isn’t yes to one of those questions then SCOTUS seems to be telling us they will not look favorably on it.

The CT also made a habit this term of invoking and even emphasizing Federalism along with the supposedly ‘dead letter’ 9th and 10th amendments which is a very welcome change. Philosophically it seems we have a 5/3/1 CT with Roberts the odd man out. He leans towards the majority 5 but is much more timid in his quest to use an incremental approach because ‘norms, public opinion’, or whatever wishy washy pretext he chooses to invoke that day.

We have a good deal to like in the current composition even with Jackson replacing Breyer. Both are aligned against most of us philosophically and both would routinely vote against the majority. Both would rule to metaphorically execute the Constitution but Breyer would use a smaller caliber round to administer the coup de gras than Jackson. That’s not a big change.

    iconotastic in reply to CommoChief. | June 30, 2022 at 12:18 pm

    I have a (misguided?) hope that Jackson will turn out to be less capable than Breyer in formulating and communicating arguments. That she will turn out to be more of a Sotomayor than anything else. While she will be a reliable leftist vote on the Court she will prove less able than Breyer to affect the conclusions of other Justices.

      retiredcantbefired in reply to iconotastic. | June 30, 2022 at 4:48 pm

      It’s quite possible Jackson will end up making Sotomayor look brilliant.

        I thought Sotomayor’s performance in her confirmation hearing (wise Latina!?) was very weak, while Jackson’s was fine. Granted Jackson was treated reasonably kindly by most, but Cruz tried to best his Harvard colleague and made an impression but didn’t score a knockout. We make fun of Jackson saying she’s not a biologist and doesn’t know what a woman is, but at least the latter question is literally a subject of legal debate these days. We should make fun of herself. She didn’t get us here.

        Breyer was very sharp. We don’t know if Jackson will be that sharp or not. But I don’t expect another Sotomayor. She’s at least pretty good.

          artichoke in reply to artichoke. | June 30, 2022 at 11:46 pm

          ^^ we should make fun of OURSELVES. Not “fun of herself”.

          artichoke in reply to artichoke. | June 30, 2022 at 11:50 pm

          I’m also not sure Jackson will be a committed leftist. She seems to think independently, maybe a mirror image of Gorsuch who can be expected to vote a certain way but may find a principle instead.

          neils in reply to artichoke. | July 1, 2022 at 10:33 am

          By declining to define “woman” because she isn’t a biologist, Jackson revealed, presumably inadvertently, her belief that the definition is a question of biology rather than a matter of personal choice. However, if the question ever comes before the Court, I wouldn’t count on her ruling consistent with her stated belief.

        Not that hard to do.

      AnAdultInDiapers in reply to iconotastic. | July 1, 2022 at 7:04 am

      I hope Jackson will prove adept at making convincing legal arguments.

      It’d be better than her implicit support for paedophilia which had no legal basis whatsoever.

    The_Mew_Cat in reply to CommoChief. | June 30, 2022 at 12:48 pm

    I expect the Democrats to do an end run around the need for legislation by using ratified treaties and the United Nations to supersede national authority. The main obstacles will be getting some treaties ratified, and in getting the assent of Russia and China when using the UNSC.

      CommoChief in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | June 30, 2022 at 12:56 pm

      The Senate has to vote to ratify a treaty and even then neither a treaty or a statue can overcome Constitutional scrutiny. One example: if the Senate voted to ratify a treaty that imposed Sharia law as a State religion that wouldn’t be constitutional and would be rejected.

      artichoke in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | June 30, 2022 at 11:52 pm

      That really could be the end of the common consent by which this government continues to occupy the real estate we provide them in the District of Columbia. I think a lot of Dems would be scared to death to try that, and they should be. They will be reluctant, and more than Manchin and Sinema will say no.

Trump wasn’t perfect, but he left behind a great Supreme Court.

    Trump has been the most consequential president for protecting the Constitution in history, the most conservative president in my life and that included Reagan. Mark “Slash” Levin keeps pointing that out and I agree in spades.

      Imagine what he could have accomplished if he wasn’t hamstrung the entire time by the illegal witch hunts and sabotage from the administrative state.

        Anyone else would have never been elected on the platform Trump ran on. Sure, Republicans always run on smaller government and lower taxes but they are always beholden to special interests and it turns into the kabuki theater that has become a tradition. All the Uniparty could do was throw monkey wrenches into the machine and they still couldn’t stop him.

        DeSantis would have never survived. DeSantis needs Trump to continue drawing all of the incoming fire until the landscape is ready for DeSantis. Maybe that will be accomplished before the primaries start and Trump decides to hand off to DeSantis and campaign for him. More likely, Trump will run, win and be followed by 8 years of DeSantis. The only thing that could mess things up for DeSantis would be to challenge Trump for the 2024 nomination and the GOPe is doing everything to tempt DeSantis to run which would take down DeSantis for sure and maybe Trump as well. The end of MAGA.

        Trump has earned the right to the second term he was cheated out of. But he may not need it if we all behave and allow him to do it his way. But I think 12 years of MAGA would almost certainly save this country.

          The_Mew_Cat in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 30, 2022 at 12:46 pm

          I hesitate to predict what will happen in 2024. Hell, I am skittish about predicting what will happen this year, when everything seems teed up for a big red wave. There are too many unknown unknowns this far out from the election.

          CommoChief in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 30, 2022 at 12:49 pm

          Twelve years of rolling back the advances of the d/prog since the Wilson admin might not be enough.

          taurus the judge in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 30, 2022 at 12:49 pm

          You bring up a good point I do with people talking about Trump versus DeSantis and why Trump is the better choice. ( which is in no way to be construed as I am not 100% behind DeSantis because I am- just not now)

          In terms of philosophy, leadership, personal courage and all they- they are both on the same level, I don’t dispute that for a second. (At the CEO level- there is no distinguishing who is better or worse, you either do it or you don’t)

          The difference is in the holistic pie chart of winning the fight. (all the parts necessary)

          The “will to win” and “courage” in reality are a sportsman’s commentary and factually false in terms of achieving the final victory with the RARE exception.

          Victory almost always goes with the most prepared and equipped who is “the first with the most”. (Look at the Japanese in WWII- they had everything human to win but lacked the industrial base and eventually were destroyed)

          In 2024, I expect to see the left on the ropes fighting for their very existence (I hope and pray)- if that scenario materializes, I expect them to fight with the veracity, ferocity and mercilessness second only to Satan knowing he is about to be thrown in the lake.

          Its realistic to believe in that scenario that the same surviving RINO/Globalist element ( hopefully greatly culled by 24) will join hands with their Socialist brothers as the uniparty and pour it on in ways never before experienced by man.

          As much as Ron DeSantis has shown me, I do NOT see his experience facing that kind of resistance nor do I see his personal or agglomerated resources to withstand that level of attack.

          (Remember this, “They” didn’t attack Trump because he was DJT or smelled bad- they were ATTACKING US and DJT was standing in the way ready to fight for us. Don’t believe for a second ANY other like minded person will be treated any differently)

          None of that is to be construed as anything negative about Ron (its not) but it is a realistic threat and capability assessment based on available data evaluated realistically.

          At this moment, Trump is the superior warrior to engage the enemy based on all current situations with the best chance of victory.

          @taurus the judge: The key advantage that Trump has over DeSantis is that he doesn’t need anyone’s money and so is not beholden to any special interests. DeSantis would likely fall into the same predicament Cruz did once Trump jumped into the race: he was instantly desperate for money and was immediately in CA making the begging tour for money.

          Another advantage is that he would not be up for re-election and so could immediately start slashing government and making other big changes. This would be the first time in history that the GOP actually reverses some of the leftist gains rather than consolidating them. The Overton Window would, for once, shift in the other direction making the political “center” closer to where voters are.

          By the time DeSantis takes over, most of the RINOs will have retired or been castrated resulting in the GOP being Trump’s party. DeSantis could immediately make use of Trump’s momentum for the next 8 years instead of simply having to fight the Uniparty in 2024 (without the support of Trump were he to challenge him to the nomination).

          DeSantis is sitting in the cat bird seat and so far, all signs are that he knows it. He has maintained that if Trump runs, he will be supporting him. In the meantime, we have two superstars wreaking havoc on the Uniparty at the same time. In four years, DeSantis will have established himself as a great governor with a national presence and having been a major player in MAGA. The last thing we need is another Pence.

          I think the SCOTUS just gave the snowball a very big push down the hill for MAGA. The US Constitution is back in play. I just can’t see the Uniparty surviving on trickery and BS alone from here. Screaming “racist!” and “phobia-phobic phobaphobe” is not going to get it done anymore. Trump and DeSantis are fighters who are not cowed by name-calling. Trump fought absolutely everyone everywhere and at the same time and will prevail. What a story for the ages!!! And all DeSantis has to do is keep fighting and work with Trump instead of against him. Don’t blow it DeSantis!!! We need you too!!!

          CommoChief in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 1, 2022 at 11:39 am


          Ryan doesn’t hold office he is on the board of Fox. Which may give even more influence.

          While I do not disagree with you, much as the abortion decision may influence turnout and voting on pocketbook issues, or not, in the fall of this year, TDS appears to be an incurable disease and could have an analogous impact in 2024. Also, I have felt for quite a while that 2024 is an election for the next generation and, to a certain extent, Biden being so awful may sort of ruin it for old people.

        pfg in reply to Paul. | June 30, 2022 at 3:33 pm

        Don’t forget the sabotage by Paul Ryan in 2017-2018. Ryan’s a real snake. The progress Trump could have accomplished for America.

          pfg in reply to pfg. | June 30, 2022 at 6:16 pm

          Ryan’s animus to Trump and his America First agenda probably lead to the Ds winning the House in Nov. 2018. Had Ryan worked with Trump, and Americans saw and felt the good things (like reduced taxes from Trump’s 2017 tax law) that Trump was attempting, the GOP might not have lost the House in Nov. 2018

          The Gentle Grizzly in reply to pfg. | June 30, 2022 at 6:25 pm

          When is he up for election again?

          CommoChief in reply to pfg. | July 1, 2022 at 11:40 am

          Ahhhhh. Misplaced response above.

nordic prince | June 30, 2022 at 12:50 pm

Get rid of ALL three-letter agencies, and some four-letter ones as well (OSHA, I’m looking at you).

    Mauiobserver in reply to nordic prince. | June 30, 2022 at 2:46 pm

    To start with disperse them to states throughout the country. Maybe the EPA should be in Fairbanks or Rocksprings.

    That would probably cause a good many elitists to leave the agencies if they had to live in Oklahoma or Alabama and would certainly change the hiring base. I suspect that if a crooked FBI or DOJ employee faced a jury in Oklahoma City or Huntsville Alabama he or she might not get the automatic verdict based on political orientation that they would get in DC.

“Supreme Court Aborts New Green Deal”

We see there are actually occasions when abortion is necessary. As long as it is safe and rare it’s okay with me.

Excellent and apt use of a memorable moment from “Conan the Barbarian,” Professor J!

Conan’s dialogue is inspired by a real-life quote from Genghis Khan.

Steven Brizel | June 30, 2022 at 1:31 pm

This is an excellent decision and Justice Gorsuch’s opinion is a great rebuke of the administrative state

I wonder how this will portend for Homeland Security and illegal immigration??

And now Alejandra Horse Face wants to abolish the Supreme Court.

What kind of people elect trash like her to Congress?

    Peabody in reply to Exiliado. | June 30, 2022 at 2:17 pm

    “What kind of people elect trash like her to Congress?”

    Trash like her elect trash like her to Congress.

      pfg in reply to Peabody. | June 30, 2022 at 3:39 pm

      What kind of people?

      Those who have been “educated” in the public schools. From the left’s point of view public schooling has been wildly successful. The dumber the people the more willing they are to go into being controlled.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Exiliado. | June 30, 2022 at 6:31 pm

    Who would have thought AOC would have something in common with the John Birch Society? I believe they do, or did, want to abolish it as well.

    Marty in reply to Exiliado. | July 1, 2022 at 11:32 am

    Y’mean A-holeOC?

could weaken Washington’s power to oversee wide swaths of American life


Wait — are they saying that like it’s a bad thing?

The Green New-old Deal is not physically or Constitutionally viable, and is an actual “burden”… hazard for the environment, which should be planned and sequestered as a forward-looking, socioeconomic pollutant.

smalltownoklahoman | June 30, 2022 at 6:13 pm

A great semi sleeper decision that will have enormous impact for years to come! A major blow to forcing us off of fossil fuels and onto unreliable solar & wind. Now if we could as a country just get over some of our hang ups regarding nuclear power we would have safe reliable power for generations to come.

Roberts sounds unusually balanced and reasonable. Whoda thunk?

    artichoke in reply to Q. | July 1, 2022 at 1:59 am

    He can write well when he wants to. He wants to when he can’t create a left majority. This was 5-4 without him, 6-3 with him, so might as well join the majority and assign the opinion to himself. Otherwise maybe Alito or Gorsuch would have written it, and it wouldn’t have called itself a narrow opinion.

    Roberts is an activist, subversive CJ. He uses all the powers of the CJ to advance the leftist agenda in many ways. There is no “gentleman’s agreement” on a Roberts court.

My question is, what’s new here. It slaps down the EPA based on solid reasoning on existing principles. (It says it’s a narrow opinion at the end of the summary, in case that matters.) Shame on the EPA, and it has to take its foot off the neck of us and our energy industry. That is a big win. It never should have come to this, so many years of ignoring the obvious.

But is there anything of general use that will apply to rein in other agencies that have also grown like cancer? Or just the observation that this particular court won’t put up with as much nonsense as those before, and every new case will have to come all the way up to SCOTUS to be fixed too?

Will this EPA ruling put a stop to Treasury’s new idea of including race in all decisions about the country’s financial infrastructure? Pretty sure Congress never even thought of giving them that authority. But is it a major question?

EPA is crushing coal, this is but a speed bump. The new wastewater regulations have spurred the decommissioning of more than 70GW of coal generation in the next 5 years, with no replacement in sight because new natural gas and nuclear plants are basically impossible to build.

Steven Brizel | July 1, 2022 at 8:16 am

This is a great decision and especially Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion which rejected the expertise of the administrative state without express authorization of Congress. Slowly but surely , Chevron deference is being discarded in these cases

    artichoke in reply to Steven Brizel. | July 1, 2022 at 3:45 pm

    I was waiting for a decision based on Chevron Deference, as Gorsuch mentioned repeatedly in his confirmation hearing. This surprised me, but it could be even better. This says that even if the agency has demonstrated competence in an area, it needs congressional approval to apply that to major decisions. So it could be less than Chevron, but it could also be more.

I propose that we take up a collection to send some nice flowers to Justice Kagan. She must be utterly crushed to have been so close to the socialist dream of governance by unelected experts, and see it turned back. I think some big, blue DEAD flowers would be perfect!

ChrisPeters | July 4, 2022 at 11:07 am

Isn’t it time to eliminate many of the various regulatory agencies that are prone to making rules and regulations without accountability to the voters?

Agencies and departments such as the EPA and Education could easily be eliminated, with their functions then transferred back to where they should be, Congress.

At the very least, they should be stripped of their rule making authority, and be relegated to information gathering, providing reports to the legislative and executive branches on an as-needed basis.

Assume the logic of this W. Va ruling on CO2 would also apply in the latest Green raging at the EPA….

..trying to regulate Oxygen (specifically the isotope ozone O3) in the world’s most prolific oil field – the West TX Permian Basin.

An EPA claiming the power to regulate Oxygen is even more crazy than regulating CO2. Especially during a worldwide crisis in supply of oil and gas.

How long until SCOTUS can slap down the runaway EPA again?

Can the SCOTUS imprison the EPA Leadership for contempt?

Jailing EPA + DOJ leadership will probably need to happen to force the lawless Exec branch to stop…