The Roberts Court at 10

Roberts’s Environmental Law Record: It’s Not Good, But Don’t Count Him Out | Chapter 6

Summary

Many of the snapshots in our yearlong “Roberts at 10” project have concluded that Chief Justice John Roberts has consistently voted for conservative outcomes in significant areas of the law. For much of Robert’s first decade as Chief Justice, his record on environmental law—the topic of this snapshot—followed the same pattern: in every major environmental law case that divided the Supreme Court during Roberts’s first eight years as Chief Justice, Roberts voted against environmental protection, including in the most significant case decided in that period—Massachusetts v. EPA. Roberts’s ninth Term was different, however, as he voted for two significant environmental victories in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation and Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (“UARG”), both cases about Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulation under the Clean Air Act. Against the backdrop of many votes to limit environmental regulation, there’s only so much one can read into Roberts’s votes in those two cases, but at a minimum, they do suggest that no one should count out Roberts’s vote as the Court prepares to hear Michigan v. EPA, another Clean Air Act case that could affect the EPA’s ability to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities, later this month.

It’s perhaps not surprising that the story of Roberts’s decisionmaking in environmental law cases is at least somewhat complicated. In the lead-up to his confirmation, Roberts came under significant attack from many members of the environmental community, who feared that his views on federal power were likely to pose an obstacle to robust enforcement of the nation’s environmental laws. Roberts aggressively defended his record on this score, repeatedly noting at his confirmation hearing that, as an attorney, he’d argued cases on both sides of the issue and assuring Senators that he could be counted on to give cases presenting environmental issues a “fair hearing.”

This snapshot will focus on two broad categories of environmental law cases: (1) those that affect the ability of individuals and organizations to sue to prevent or redress environmental harm, and (2) those that affect the ability of governments to regulate pollutants and polluters. Unfortunately, Roberts’s votes in the vast majority of environmental cases that have divided the Court during his tenure thus far have called into question the assurances he gave at his confirmation hearing. Moreover, his more general record on standing suggests little room for optimism on that front, as one of our previous snapshots discusses. But Roberts’s most recent decisions on the second front suggest that while Roberts’s environmental law record thus far has been bad, those who favor strong environmental protections still shouldn’t count him out going forward.

Downloads

More from Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection
April 23, 2020

RELEASE: Handing Environment a Win, Court Follows Text of Clean Water Act

WASHINGTON – Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in County of Maui v. Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund,...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Environmental Protection
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

American Lung Association v. EPA

In American Lung Association v. EPA, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering whether a 2019 Environmental Protection Agency rule, which repealed the 2015 Clean Power Plan, violates the Clean Air...
Environmental Protection
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

League of Conservation Voters v. Trump

In League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is considering whether President Trump may lawfully rescind certain measures put in place by President Obama to protect Alaskan...
Environmental Protection
July 22, 2019

Former EPA Heads, 13 States, Native American Tribe, Beer Brewers, Others Join Supreme Court Clean Water Act Case

Earthjustice
Bipartisan coalition opposes Maui County, Trump administration in case that threatens clean water across U.S.
Environmental Protection
U.S. Supreme Court

County of Maui v. Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund

In County of Maui v. Hawai‘i Wildlife Fund, the Supreme Court considered whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit for the discharge of a pollutant from a point source to navigable waters, even if the pollutant travels...
Environmental Protection
June 17, 2019

Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh Clash With Roberts and Alito Over Federal Preemption of State Regulation

Reason
Understanding today’s Supreme Court decision in Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren