it's beyond what the epa can do here. this brings up the question potentially, will chevron deference be overturned in this country and will that constrain the power of agencies beyond the epa? we'll bring it to you as we can. jeffrey, as you look at it, one thing that's notable is the same day that this was argued in oral argument, the united nations handed down that report warning of the damage of climate change. if, in fact, this ruling goes again the epa's power, which we don't know yet, but that ties the biden administration's hands to regulating any of this. >> you know, climate change is here regardless of what the supreme court says, regardless of what liberals say, regardless of what conservatives say. climate change is not going to respond to politics. it's going to respond to actual things that human beings do with regard to how we regulate the environment. and, you know, that's why these cases matter so much because climate change is proceeding, and the only issue is what, if anything, is going to be done abou

it's tide ed epa's hands behinds back. >> if the epa can't regulate greenhouse gas emissions specifically with regard to power plants or -- and it will likely reach further, what does that mean for the agency? >> well, one of the reasons you have an epa is that they can do the tough job of looking at the law, looking at the science and understanding how to get rid of pollution. if they don't do that, we're going to be left to go back to congress. and to be honest, the senate hasn't shown an interest in addressing isthe realities of climate change. this is addressing an immediate problem we need to address. there are answers, there are cleaner solutions, ways to save families money. we need to allow the epa the ability to address climate change and to do it in a cost-effective, common sense manner. clearly this court is not living in today's world. it is not taking into account that how we make electricity today is very different than when thomas edison invented electricity. i think the case, like many of the cases of the last several weeks, calls into question the legitimacy of the court,

i think epa hastaken great first steps . they opened the doors to the newest technologies which is huge and we've been working directly with them and a whole bunch of other stakeholders to help them get those rules across the finish line in terms of planning for the future for better technologies taking hold. to the extent that agencies can look at regulations that are essentially adaptable in the future and also setting metrics that we think we can achieve in the future, that's a positive. >> and outside of the rulemaking process are there any other specific recommendations you would make to improve the process on your side? just to make sure that we don't have a bunch of great technology companies stock in some sort of bureaucratic mess which i know happens at times . >> yes, i think the ability to have these rules that are very much inviting of stakeholderfeedback is very positive . and certainly a great step right now in terms of looking at agencies like rbe or rpl or some of those groups would be to now what we really n

finally strong epa standards would create more than 60,000 high-paying jobs according to epa estimates. in manufacturing and other sectors. these policies can dramatically cut us methane emissions by 2030 and build on global momentum to address methane emissions as seen in this pledge led bythe united states . the us has shown great leadership on methane around the world and can back up that leadership with strong action to cut methane here and at home. methane emissions from oil and gas are wreaking havoc on our communities. and we have to solution in hand to raymond in. we must use them now. >> thanks to all our witnesses for your insightful testimony. i like the american can-do spirit you all have. now will go to member questions .as of miss transects. >> thank you madam chair and i feel like this is the first time i've ever been first on the committee to ask questions so thank you for that. according to the international energy agency natural gas markets could have sold some additional hundred 80 billion cubic meters of natural gas if all the leaks from fossil fuel operations in 20

the other on the epa. much broader than just the epa about the whole federal government and how we can regulate businesses and farms and all of our lives. that's coming up. i do want to bring up this point about china. we don't talk about it enough. the president pointed out at the beginning. this is number 6. this is what he said about nato and china. >> president biden: the last time nato drafted a new mission statement was 12 years ago. at that time, it characterized russia as a partner. and it didn't even mention china. the world has changed. changed a great deal since then. >> dana: and so when you have the people of europe -- excuse me, nato bringing the pacific saying you're welcome to come. and china is on the menu here, really. i think that basically, they are saying, it's very clear that we all agree that you are a problem. and yet, you look across the board, byron, china absolutely everywhere making decisions over the last several years that have been very strategic. buying up a lot of farmland.

as we said, 19 republican - re pt he lal challenge to the epa. west virginia's attorney general patrick morrissey led the national coalition at the supreme court. mr. attorney general, i don't know if you are able to hear the epa administrator, but i just want to ask you first, how much of a victory is this today for electric power generation and power plants in this country? >> i think it is a big brick three for the rule of law. i did have a chance to listen to the administrator, and i guess what i would say is a lot of people are saying tonight the sky is falling, the sky is falling. but people can take into account that the epa never had this authority in the first place. there were big promises made over the last decade in terms of what type of initiatives the epa is going to advance to fight climate change. but we always knew that the epa only had a narrow sliver of authority to regulate carbon emissions. i would say to americans washing '- watching tonight thaishitant about a very simple proposition. who gets to make the major decisions of

this is about at base 10 epa -- can the epa regulate greenhouse gases of fossil fuel powered plants and how can they do that with competing rules going that way. basically what the court said is the epa tried to go too far when you're pushing the states away from those fuel sources into renewables and other ways to do this. having credit programs prayed now we are back into trump's rule which was now the operative rule. so we are in that status where you can regulated power plant as a stack and that's about it. weeks back that to be changed assumes they come up with the next proposal. alix: -- guy: so is the ball now back in congresses, the senate's area. if we were to see the legislative part of government now deciding it wants to beef up the rules of the epa operates under in the authority it has, is it still possible to deliver these kinds of rules and change the climate trajectory? >> assuming congress would act, that the pathway that the court outlined. basically said epa you can go this far because congress hasn't told you you're allowed to go this far. it's what we got a lot of i

let's focus in on west virginia versus epa. what are the repercussions of this and what does it mean? >> the repercussions are broader than just this ruling which restricts the epa's ability. we're talking about limits being imposed essentially on using coal and the shift to more climate-friendly sources of power incentivized by the government. let me point out, jose, this was a case that the court did not have to decide. the biden administration had acknowledged that it did not intend to put back into use the provision that the states were challenging because market forces had already, in essence, put that provision into effect, pushing companies toward that shift that would benefit the environment. the court decided to hear the case, nonetheless. that's a good signal to how far its reach will be, because this is part of the conservative agenda of dismantling what they call the nanny state and limiting the ability of the federal government and executive branch agencies to work in meaningful work on behalf of the public. that m

the epa hands are behind their back. it has limited its ability to do what is smart and terms of addressing climate change. >> shannon: plenty of people that are celebrating the check on the administrative power, what do you make of this? >> the epa's job is not to do what it wants to do, it's to do what congress tells it to do, which is precisely the problem. for decades now congress has delegated authority to these unelected and unaccountable agencies and have used it to take off their responsibility for their own decision-making, what the supreme court has done in recent weeks estate to the elected branch of government you have to decide, you write the laws, not the court and other bureaucracies. and i think that's a good thing. >> shannon: anna win for their biden administration today, remaining in mexico, get a little bit of reaction to that from folks seeing this and living it firsthand at the border. >> very disappointed in the decision made, this is devastating for the state of texas and the united states of amer

the way epa does that is the statute tells epa to identify the best -- systems of reduction in the universe. costs, energy consequences, all of that, and then to set a topline number to reduce emissions. epa -- to states which develops plans to implement that standard. what the obama administration did in 2015 was issued this regulation and said that system of emissions reduction, looking out over what the industry is actually doing, involves both improvements the plant can make, like tweaking efficiency, but also took into account the way plants were reducing emissions by shifting away from coal. the most greenhouse gas intensive form, to completely renewable sources of energy. when epa issued that regulation which told states to come back with plans by 2018 to meet those standards, the supreme court stepped in in 2016 and saved to the regulation. the first time the court had ever -- regulation before any court had ruled on the merits. it took effect. the trump administration formally repealed the clean power plant, saying the epa had interpreted the statute too broadly. put in place its o

did the epa also have authority to do something that the obama administration wanted to do? which is to save the utilities. one way you can meet the goals and reducing pollution is to shift more of your generation toward cleaner sources like wind and solar, and away from coal-fired sources. did the epa have authority to order regulations that would do that, and today by a vote of 6- 3, the supreme court said no. there is no way to read the existing statutes to that authority for the epa, and a part of the rolling that has the potential to limit the ability of regulatory agencies across the city to do more. it said when the agencies want to do something that involves a major decision like this, major question, there has to be exquisite authority from congress to do it. that is what today's decision has a potentially wider impact. let me touch on one other thing that i think is going to get more attention in the days to come. that is the case of the supreme court today agreed to take, agreed to decide a case from north carolina that the public urged the court to take, involved

i'm eamon javers in for tyler matheson the supreme court strips the epa with some of its power dealing a major blow to the biden administration's climate agenda. this hour, its impact on business and what it means for eig investing. crypto crisis and that's how one analyst is describing the collapse in prices, but he's also betting coinbase will come out of this rough patch stronger and we'll ask him how he thinks that eamon, welcome stocks off well off session lows and the dow is off suggestion points the nasdaq down 51 as we look to close out the year falling below 3% remember, it had been up to 3.5% going into the fed meeting earlier this month at the 75 basis point hike and a huge reset since then talk about resets. shares of amazon down 1.5% today down from the pre-covid lows from february 2020, a complete round trip back to the pandemic lows for amazon shares, eamon? >> we are two hours away from closing out the month, the quarter and the first half >> the dow and s&p are on track for their worst three-month period when the pandemic sent stocks tumbling for the first half the dow

i've had to deal with the epa _ take on this. i've had to deal with the epa as— take on this. i've had to deal with the epa as mayor— take on this. i've had to deal with the epa as mayor — _ take on this. i've had to deal with the epa as mayor — i— take on this. i've had to deal with the epa as mayor — ithink- take on this. i've had to deal with the epa as mayor — i think a - take on this. i've had to deal with the epa as mayor — i think a lot i take on this. i've had to deal with| the epa as mayor — i think a lot of this is— the epa as mayor — i think a lot of this is coming not— the epa as mayor — i think a lot of this is coming not from _ the epa as mayor — i think a lot of this is coming not from the - the epa as mayor — i think a lot of| this is coming not from the leaders of the _ this is coming not from the leaders of the epa, — this is coming not from the leaders ofthe epa, but— this is coming not from the leaders ofthe epa, but at— this is coming not from the leaders ofthe epa, but at the _ this is coming not from the leaders of the e

if the justices rule in the epa's favor, things will remain somewhat status quo and the epa will remain in power for now. if the justices decide in west virginia's favor of those people from the state of west virginia's favor, that means the epa's power could diminish over time. this would be a massive blow to the president's climate change agenda as he is working with the epa on this. a ruling against could also weaken other federal agencies regulating hot-button issues, work place safety and vaccine mandates, and other health measures. a decision favorable to west virginia would be welcome by those who believe federal bureaucrats in the epa in washington, d.c., should not make environmental policy for millions of people across the country. liz, the white house believes the clean air act gives epa its broad powers. they feel confident about this, that the department of justice will defend the eba. if the epa loses, perhaps an appeal. there are only two supreme court opinions coming out tomorrow morning. the final of the term, actually justice stephen breyer's last day and ketanji brown

and because congress has never done that, the epa has no authority to do that. the chief justice writing in his opinion, it is not plausible that congress gave epa the authority to adopt on its own such a major change in environmental regulation. on the second point, on the remain in mexico program, the court by a different majority, by 5-4, said that the biden administration did, in fact, follow all the necessary rules when it tried to shut down the trump administration's remain in mexico policy that required people arriving at the southern border seeking asylum in the u.s. to wait in mexico for their adjudication of their asylum claims. of course, during that time there was something like 70,000 people that were in that program, the sort of tent cities you're seeing there sprang up. the people who were in there were abused, they didn't have access to lawyers and it was a foreign policy disaster with mexico, so the supreme court ruling said the biden administration can continue trying to shut it down. now, two other actions since we left spoke on cases the supr

vilsack: i have talked to the epa about crop protection activities and products and encouraged the epa to continue to follow the science and to listen to farmers and farmers' concerns. frankly, they have. with all due respect, i am representing farmers. we are representing farmers on e 15, record trade, climate smart agriculture, and providing resources. we are representing farmers in terms of disaster assistance. $6 billion of pandemic assistance came out. >> thank you. i want to go on to my next question. i want to talk about fertilizers for a second. nitrogen based fertilizers are dependent upon natural gas as a substrate as well as to heat the process up. natural gas has doubled. nitrogen made fertilizers have quadrupled. one of the things we can do is decrease some of the tariffs on fertilizers coming into this country. have you spoken out as a strong voice for our culture -- agriculture about decreasing those tariffs? this administration has done an incredible job decreasing tariffs on solar panels. what are we doing to lower the tariffs on fertilizers? sec. vilsack: we have talk

a ruling that the epa has limited authority to regulate emissions from power plants. the other ruling, allowing the biden administration to scrap the trump-era policy forcing most asylum seekers to wait in mexico while they're cases are decided. the supreme court ending the term with those two consequential decisions, and they've already placed a major election case on their docket for the fall. abc's senior national correspondent terry moran leads us off from the supreme court. >> reporter: at the supreme court today, a major blow to the biden administration's efforts to fight climate change. in a 6-3 decision, the court's conservative justices voted to sharply cut back the epa's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. chief justice john roberts, writing for the majority, at first acknowledged that "capping carbon dioxide emissions may be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day." but roberts declared that sw sweeping regulations like the one at issue in this case, aimed at reducing power plants' carbon output nationwide, go beyond the law

i remember when i was at the epa we would be asked around state of the union time. to send over the i think they put a word limit on a hundred words that the president might say in the state of the union speech about the environment and if we got a sentence and if we were we were thrilled to think that almost 20% of the speech was dedicated to the environment that state of the union speech was dedicated in the in to the environment. it's really something and it shows i think how the president and the white house staff were really starting to think about how we need to as he as he put it he said the great question of the 70s is whether we're going to clean up. the water and the air and the land that had been so poorly degradated and polluted over the over the decades before and then the following month. he sent a very extensive environmental message up to the congress which outlined a 37-point program including 23 major legislative proposals and 14 new actions. that could be taken either by administrative actions or executive order. and those there were five main poi

but then, in july, the president proposed a creation of the epa. he wanted to take 44 different agencies that were spread across nine different departments, all of which had environmental responsibilities and bring them into one agency. that, internally, particularly the cabinet, john whitaker who servedion the policy council in the administration kind of was the lead staff person for the environment. he tells a story about the cabinet meeting, where environmental issues came up. and, of course, the secretary of the interior was proposing certain things to protect the environment, the secretary of the commerce was saying this will ruin business. it's that classic argument that has gone on, really, for decades about whether the cost of environmental protections is going to kill jobs and hurt the economy. of course, we have found over the years that the exact opposite is true. protecting the environment is not a zero sum game. in fact, it often leads to new technologies, new businesses, new jobs. both things can be accomplished at the same time. but

this is also another case, west virginia versus epa challenging the epa's clean air act. also remaining kennedy versus bremerton washington school district, the high school football coach who was fired in 2015 for praying by himself while at the school and visible by some students. one parent complained because her son is atheist. g.o.p. centers and former vice president mike pence are supporting the coach. on fox news sunday, abrams is concerned about the future decisions from the court's conservative majority. >> i would reject the notion that this is the will of the people. this is a political decision, made by the narrowest of margins and done to satisfy an even narrower constituency. >> when the court does break for the summer, it will mark the end for justice steven pryor on the bench who will be retiring, who will be replaced by his former law clerk jackson, the first black woman on the court in years. >> eric: thanks, lucas. >> arthel: major rulings from the supreme court this week including the case from the former high school football coach who was fired after p

of the epa. the court used similar reasoning to strike down several covid policies. the cdc eviction moratorium, and the test mandate. both covid approaches that the court struck down on similar theories. i think you see what justice elena kagan said in her dissent. this is the court assuming for itself the power to make really consequential decisions, taking it from agencies and congress, and the topic here is climate regulation, but i think the logic applies to all questions and problems, and the court is here saying we're going to second fguess your ability to d that. >> let's bring in ginger zee, and ginger, we were just looking over the biden climate agenda. just among those things cutting u.s. emissions by 50% below 2005 levels by 2030, and then it goes on by 2050 to have a net zero economy. how do scientists approach this now? >> those were already difficult goals to attain, and where we're at right now, as we see almost every year, almost like it's expected, we have just again in may hit

. >> this particular collar has caused 100,000 incidents reported to the epa and over 2,500 pet deaths reported to the epa. >> reporter: following a 16 invesgati, a house om is ng to revamp its review process for products with pesticides, and is asking elanco, the company that makes the collar, to issue a volunteer recall. pet owners say the collars have led to skin irritation, seizures, and death. >> tigger had a collar around his neck at the time of his death. >> reporter: she blames it for the dog's sudden death. >> none of my other three dogs got sick or died. >> reporter: seresto collars contain two different pesticides designed to ward off fleas and ticks. elanco says the collars are safe. >> the review of the team and data over ten years, 33 million dogs that have worn the collar, there's no linkage to the active ingredients to a pet death. >> reporter: at least for now the seresto collar is still available for purchase, but pet owners we spoke with are staying clear of it. >> it's scary, for sure scary. and i can't believe that they're still being sold on shelves. >> reporter:

this could be an important case will be on the epa. this could really be a major break put on the ministry of state and the expansion of the administrative state by the supreme court. this is probably the most important of the decisions we are awaiting. >> the four decisions we had on our screen. the top one is called biden versus texas. joe biden wants to undo much of what his predecessor did regarding the remaining mexico policy and the court has to decide whether that's appropriate or not. >> the real question is how do you get rid of the regulatory policy that you don't like. the trump administration try to get rid of regulatory policy of the obama administration because they thought they were implemented correctly in the supreme court ended up saying even if you don't like the way they were implemented you have to do it the right way. now the shoe is on the other foot. the claim is the biden people came in and revoked the remaining mexico policy but they did not follow the proper regulatory procedures and that's really what that i

for the epa to address climate change, handed down today on the establishment clause. so we have so many decisions this term that really change who we are as a society. frankly, i agree with professor tomlin, it is outside of the main stream of not only where the court used to be and society generally. justice jackson has an important step in bringing the court back to the main stream. even if it takes time to get there. >> professor this has a historic first, week, reversal, but also historically low public confidence. is that something that's not just this new justice but the court should take into consideration? >> you know what, i have been reflecting on her confirmation and swearing in today all day. i think she represents the future, the future of this court and the future of this country. and unfortunately right now, the control of the supreme court ma scombroert better represents the antequated past. it is a path to which a majority of americans do not wish to return. and so we'll see what future terms bring. this past week has professor highlighted has been de

chief justice roberts continues that this view of the epa's authority was not only unprecedented but that it also affected a fundamental revision of the statute, the law, changing it from one scheme of regulation into an entirely different kind the chief justice deciding the original purpose of the law was more that was never intended to be president biden reacting to the decision swiftly saying, quote, this is another devastating decision by the court that aims to take our country backwards. the court's decision risks damaging our ability to keep our air clean. president biden will not relent in using the authorities that he has under law to protect public health and tackle the climate change crisis. end quote. the decision certainly a victory for certain parts of the fossil fuel and power generation industries the court has expressly stated it is the power of congress not the epa or federal agencies to enact and enforce sweeping regulations over an industry this case largely came about in spite of a rule on coal. they are not reacting positively probably because the market already

we had regulatory powers in not just the epa. the kcourt is saying we can loo at other agencies as well. >> the court is seizing for itself the power to decide what questions were major and what questions have to be decided by congress rather than agencies. even though congress drafted these statutes to give agencies the broad authority to address new developing problems with new solutions. relying on the kind of expertise that john referred to. >> let's look at the court's other big decision today. the chief justice, the court's liberals, john roberts, brett kavanaugh and the court's three liberals giving president biden a victory. the biden administration wanted to end the so-called remain in mexico policy. let's go outside the court. this is a case where chief justice roberts and brett kavanaugh before the days on the supreme court have been proponents of presidential power. the executive gets to make the decision. is that what we have here? >> that's right. they're saying the biden administration does have the power to rescin

i don't know this was west virginia versus the epa. senator manchin, who's been a thorn in the democrats' side despite become a democrat, is from west virginia if you're looking for senator joe manchin of west virginia to get mad about the decision that west virginia just won, we'll see what that appetite really is. >> it may not warrant a free lunch, not a big enough appetite brian, we appreciate it. >>> let's check on the place averaging today. definitely a clear screen of green. disney down 32% quarter to date. boeing down more than 30% as well we're back in two. hey businesses! you all deserve something epic! so we're giving every business, our best deals on every iphone - including the iphone 13 pro with 5g. that's the one with the amazing camera? yep! every business deserves it... like one's that re-opened! hi, we have an appointment. and every new business that just opened! like aromatherapy rugs! i'll take one in blue please! it's not complicated. at&t is giving new and existing business customers our best deals on every iphone

we have a close relationship with epa on this particular issue. wanting to make sure as epa promulgates and implements rules and regulation of any kind including waters of the u.s. it does so with farmer input. we have encouraged he has beene, very true to his word he is sitting down, he is listening and he is making himself and his team available for farmer input. our second responsibility i think is a take a look at rules and regulations are implemented how can usda provide resources and assistance to enable farmers and ranchers to implement whatever the rule might begin the most efficient and effective way for them and for their operation. we obviously will be committed to doing that. >> thank you. you know, between the publication of 2012 and 2017, senses of agriculture report 67000 farm ceased operation. 67000 and over 14 million acres of land went out of farming. what is your department doing to help protect and restore our nations farmland and farmers? >> there are couple of things. i think first and foremost were trying to figure out ways

here's justice kagan today in the epa decision. she said the current court is textualist in being so suited. special cannons like the major questions doctrine, this is something that they made up. came to light in the ipa case and in this case coming up with the legislatures, magically appear as get out of text free cards. that's pretty out there. they were pretty out there in the roe decision. the institutional liberals that sit on the supreme court are actually warning us that as bad as things are been, they are getting worse really, really fast. as you mentioned, they are about to get worse for maybe our lifetime considering the age of these justices on the court now. >> you go to kavanaugh, this is somebody whose memorable quote is what goes around comes around and that i like beer and he essentially was threatening -- he is saying i am going to politicize this court. alito said, no, we are a court that has desired outcomes. we're going to rule almost always in favor of conservative christian. they're 83%. whatever conservative

are their rk-arounds the epa can now begin to look at? >> yes. i mean, the executive branch still has to assert its authority to defend the laws that are on the books, to make sure that polluters are not given a free ticket to continue to spew carbon pollution into the atmosphere. there are things that the executive branch can continue to do, and it has to assert its rights here against a branch that is essentially trying to usurp its rights to enforce the laws of the land. secondly, we obviously need climate legislation to pass congress. if that's through reconciliation, that's what has to happen. we need legislation that will allow us to meet our obligations to the rest of the world, to lower our carbon emissions because without u.s. leadership, we're the largest polluter in history when it comes to the cukelative carbon pollution -- cumulative carbon pollution, we have put more pollution into the atmosphere than any other country. it is necessary for us to demonstrate leadership globally if we are going to expect the rest of the world to come

murray's man, scott pruitt is you know is is named epa director administrator. the trump administration is largely willing to embrace bob murray's deregulatory framework. however, you can't put the genie back in the bottle natural gas is is cheaper than coal now particularly again, you can make an argument that well, that's only because their environmental regulations fair enough, right, but natural gas industry is not going to have a full-throated opposition to the environmental regulations that allows it to burn cleaner than coal. and so the trump administration sort of rhetorically embraces the coal industry, but simply can't do what murray wants fully and so he turns to the ohio legislature and through this kind of scandal eliminates, ohio subsidies for solar power and other you know, and other alternative energies in order to have a bailout for coal and nuclear. it was interesting for me driving to indiana yesterday that as soon as i hit the a line. there was this huge solar farm which may or not be trade directly related to this issue but probably is right

. >> reporter: have been linked to thousands of deaths and the epa suggests nearly 100,000 complaints about the collar since 2015. some lawmakers now asking why the epa has not acted. >> why a product linked to more than 2500 pet deaths remains on the market. >> reporter: the chairman of the house subcommittee is now calling on the epa to conduct a review and he is asking the maker to issue a voluntary recall. the company argues the collars are safe. saying their experts found no evidence of any harmful. >> adverse event reports are not intended to be and in fact are absolutely not proof of causation. >> reporter: pet owners, however, insis their dogs have suffered from vomiting, trembling and even seizures. >> ultimately, the family decided the most humane thing would be to put him to sleep at the age of 9. >> some humans also experienced side effects. regulators in canada have already banned the collars. >> thank you. >>> costco is facing a lawsuit over its popular rotisserie chicken. two shareholders are suing the company claiming it mistreats the birds at its processing plant by a

first of all, the epa front. these are emissions from power plants that administrations for decades have been trying to control in one way or another. and we're in this climate change crisis. and so the -- just that part, the court has stripped the epa of some power here to do that. chief justice john roberts said, if the court -- if epa is going to do something this significant, it has to have clear authority from congress. it cannot overly read its statute. laina kagan said these agencies are supposed to take care of this, because they have the expertise here, and she said, i can't think of many things more frightening than the court taking control here. broader, the court has diminished the power of regulators across the board for environment, public safety saying no longer as past courts did offer more deference to agency authority, saying it's in the hands of congress. the dissenters say congress isn't going to do anything. this will leave so many spots of public safety health open for no regulation essentia

epa is able to impose regulations and can only consider technology and measures that can be implemented at each individual source as opposed to what the obama administration had done, which was that the stringency based upon the ability of plants to shift generation away from those fossil fuel sources and towards new renewable energy, which is the most effective tool that epa has for controlling the pollution. although the authority to control greenhouse gas emissions does remain, its ability to a set limits our six seriously curtailed by this. the us accounts for nearly 14% of greenhouse gas emissions. what are the legal resources available?— available? well, the agency will still have _ available? well, the agency will still have authority - available? well, the agency will still have authority to i will still have authority to control existing fossil fuel power plants. but the agency, it's power plants. but the agency, its authority to control vehicle emissions from cars and trucks remains fully intact, and that's a sector with even more significant greenhouse gas emissions. at the

breaking news, we just got the ruling in the epa challenge case. come on income you've got the news. ashley: it is significant, the supreme court ruled with west virginia in west virginia versus epa, this is all about federal executive overreach and it deals with the epa and its planned, sweeping planet should be said to reconfigure the country's energy grid, energy system. in other words getting away from fossil fuels and moving to clean energy. the epa was challenged by 27 gop led state saying this is too broad, you don't have the authority in the supreme court in a 6-3 decision agreed with the states, i was reading an opinion from justice roberts who said capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a transition away from use of coal to generate electricity may be sensible but not plausible that congress gave epa the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme. you have this alphabet soup of federal agencies out there putting in these rules and the pushback is wait a minute, shouldn't this go through congress? shouldn't

what was the epa trying to do and why did the court block it? >> well, thanks, jake. it wasn't at epa's initiative that this went to the supreme court, and we're disappointed in the decision, as you may guess. but look, for decades, we've had special interests funded by the fossil fuel companies that are trying to turn our country back instead of move forward with the clean energy transition. that decision did limit the ability of epa to use one section of the clean air act in a way they had used to tackle the climate crisis. but it did not prevent them from acting in a regulatory way. and this president is fully committed to moving forward to tackle the climate crisis. and he's using bold steps throughout the whole of government in order to get that done. and so we will see the transition to clean energy, regardless of the supreme court. but we're disappointed that they chose to choose those interests over the interest of the public in the united states of america, and across the world, to worry about the challenge of climate change. >> just to play devil's advocate,

the overturning of the epa's authority. it was called west virginia versus the epa. it's a problem for the administration. it deals with their efforts to combat climate change. it was a 6-3 ruling that the epa does not have the power to june lawsuit rally cap emissions from power plants. it's a blow to the epa's authority and the president's climate agenda. it puts in the power of other federal agencies, thinking about workplace safety and vaccine mandates. the other ruling 5-4 with justice roberts and kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices to get rid of the remain in mexico policy put forward in 2019 by the trump administration. forced certain migrants to wait in mexico until dates were set in the united states. these are migrants from southern american countries. as you mentioned, this was under the backdrop of this historic day at the supreme court with now justice jackson being officially sworn in. she took theest at noon. she comes to the supreme court at an incredibly tense time. tomorrow will mark one week since the overturns of roe v. wade. the justices t

basically saying, curbing the epa's authority here when it comes to power plants. it was broken down along ideological lines. chief justice john roberts delivering this big blow to president biden, and it comes, of course, as scientists are raising alarms about global warming. what chief justice roberts did is he reversed a lower court that had given the epa broad authority to regulate in this area, so to regulate the entire grid instead of specific improvements at specific power plants, but roberts said, look, if the epa wants to act like that, it has to have direct authority from congress, and it did not. and lurking behind this case, this environmental case, is a much bigger ruling about the power of federal agencies, because in general, conservatives think that agencies have become too powerful, they're unaccountable to the public, whereas liberals think that they need their independence. they need to be able to, say, move to protect the environment or worker safety. so, this decision was about more than just this particular environmental issue, and justice ele