Detailed Summary of "SCOTUS’s Endless Beef with the EPA"
Strict Scrutiny Podcast Episode – Released October 21, 2024

Introduction

In this episode of Strict Scrutiny, hosts constitutional law professors Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray delve into the latest Supreme Court proceedings, focusing primarily on the Court's ongoing conflicts with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The hosts provide a comprehensive overview of significant cases, court decisions, and developments within various state courts that impact federal law and everyday life.

Main Discussion: San Francisco vs. EPA

The centerpiece of the episode revolves around the Supreme Court case City and County of San Francisco vs. EPA, a pivotal environmental lawsuit challenging the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act.

• Case Overview:
  San Francisco operates a combined overflow system that discharges pollutants into the Pacific Ocean, violating the Clean Water Act's stipulation requiring permits for pollutant discharge. The EPA had issued a permit with conditions to prevent water quality violations, including prohibiting pollution that affects water quality standards.

• San Francisco's Argument:
  The city contends that the EPA's permit conditions are too vague, lacking specific limitations on pollutants, thereby violating the Clean Water Act's requirement for precise effluent limitations. They argue for more explicit regulations rather than broad prohibitions.

• Supreme Court's Stance:
  The conservative majority of the Supreme Court appears predisposed to limit the EPA's regulatory scope. Justice Kagan highlights the importance of not inferring broad regulatory intentions from legislative history, emphasizing textualism:

  "Congress created the Clean Water Act to impose specific effluent limitations, not to grant agencies carte blanche for vague standards." [17:14]

• Oral Arguments Insights:
  The interaction during oral arguments was tense, with Justices Thomas and Alito expressing skepticism towards San Francisco's position. Justice Kavanaugh, reflecting the conservative majority's view, suggested that the EPA's regulations overly favor polluters:

  "You're trying to impose rules without clear guidelines. How is that fair to the polluters?" [20:12]

• Hosts' Commentary:
  Leah Litman criticizes the Court's perspective, stating,

  "Republican justices view polluters as victims needing protection, flipping the intended purpose of the Clean Water Act." [16:21]
  Kate Shaw adds,
  "Justice Kavanaugh's rigid interpretation undermines the EPA's ability to enforce meaningful environmental protections." [29:35]

Court News and Decisions

Strict Scrutiny also covers several other key Supreme Court cases influencing federal law:

1. Bouarfa vs. Mayorkas – Immigration Determinations:

   • Issue: Whether judicial review is permissible when the Department of Homeland Security revokes an approved visa based on reasons that would constitute a non-discretionary denial.
   • Potential Outcome: The government is likely to prevail, reinforcing broad executive discretion in immigration decisions.

     "As long as there's potential plausibility, the courts hesitate to overstep into immigration discretion." [43:13]

2. Medical Marijuana vs. Horn – RICO Damages:

   • Issue: Whether economic harms from personal injuries qualify as injuries to business or property under the RICO statute.
   • Court's Skepticism: The justices expressed doubts about expanding RICO's applicability beyond its traditional scope.

     "Loss of a job isn't inherently a business injury under RICO unless directly tied to the defendant's actions." [46:45]

3. Bufkin vs. McDonough – Veterans Benefits:

   • Issue: Whether the Veterans Court must independently assess the Department of Veterans Affairs' application of the "benefit of the doubt" rule or if it should only conduct a clear error review.
   • Government's Position: Emphasizes limited judicial intervention in discretionary agency decisions.

     "The department's discretion in benefits determinations should be respected unless clear error is evident." [50:17]

State Court Developments

The hosts highlight significant state-level court decisions impacting democracy and civil rights:

1. Michigan Supreme Court – RFK Jr.'s Ballot Challenge:

   • Background: RFK Jr. withdrew from the election, seeking to remove his name from ballots already printed and in circulation.
   • Outcome: The Michigan Supreme Court ruled against RFK Jr., maintaining his name on the ballot. The 6th Circuit upheld this decision narrowly, emphasizing election administration integrity.

     "Attempting to alter ballots post-printing undermines democratic processes." [52:25]

2. Nebraska Supreme Court – Felony Disenfranchisement:

   • Issue: The court invalidated Nebraska's efforts to disenfranchise individuals with prior felony convictions, ruling such actions unconstitutional.
   • Timing Critique: The decision came just days before registration deadlines, complicating voter enfranchisement efforts.

     "Declaring laws unconstitutional only after they've been actively undermining voter rights is a procedural flaw." [55:44]

3. Florida – Threats Over Reproductive Rights Ads:

   • Situation: Florida officials, including the Surgeon General, threatened criminal prosecution of TV stations airing pro-reproductive rights ads.
   • Court Ruling: A Florida district court issued a temporary restraining order against these threats, affirming First Amendment protections.

     "To keep it simple for the state of Florida: The First Amendment, stupid." [60:34]

4. Georgia – Blocking Election Rules:

   • Developments: Georgia trial courts blocked new state election board rules that would have allowed local officials to obstruct vote certification and mandated hand recounts without adequate preparation.

     "Allowing county officials to unilaterally question and block vote counts silences voters and disrupts democratic order." [62:52]

5. Tennessee – Abortion Law Medical Exceptions:

   • Case: Blackman vs. Tennessee addressed whether certain medical emergencies and lethal fetal diagnoses qualify as exceptions under Tennessee's restrictive abortion law.
   • Ruling: The Chancery Court partially blocked the state's abortion ban, permitting abortions in specific medical circumstances to protect providers from criminal prosecution.

     "This narrow ruling doesn't overturn the ban but ensures critical medical exceptions are respected." [65:10]

Passing of Lily Ledbetter

The episode pays tribute to Lily Ledbetter, a trailblazer in employment discrimination law whose case led to significant legislative change.

• Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company:
  Ledbetter sued her employer for gender-based pay discrimination, challenging the statute of limitations on such claims. The Supreme Court ruled against her, asserting that claims must be filed within 180 days of discriminatory pay decisions.

• Legacy:
  Justice Ginsburg's dissent in the case was instrumental, urging Congress to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to allow broader timeframes for filing discrimination claims. This led to the enactment of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, which resets the statute of limitations with each discriminatory paycheck.

  "Rest in power, Lily Ledbetter. Your fight has transformed the landscape for workers nationwide." [65:10]

Conclusion

Throughout the episode, Strict Scrutiny emphasizes the Supreme Court's trend towards limiting federal agency powers, particularly the EPA, and the broader implications for environmental regulation and civil liberties. The hosts critically analyze court decisions, highlighting the tension between conservative justices' textualist approaches and the intended protections of federal laws like the Clean Water Act. Additionally, they underscore the significance of state court rulings in shaping democratic processes and civil rights, advocating for vigilant oversight of judicial actions that may undermine fundamental freedoms.

Notable Quotes:

• Melissa Murray on Judge Chutkan’s rejection of Trump’s bid to seal the appendix:

  "Trump's request gets denied. The appendices were unsealed on Friday..." [04:31]

• Leah Litman on the Court’s devolution:

  "We've seen these state-level efforts of people trying to keep ballot initiatives, like in Michigan... it was about control." [61:30]

• Kate Shaw on the Clean Water Act:

  "Neil Gorsuch, true to his EP, is hobbling administrative agencies." [31:09]

• Leah Litman on the ongoing timeline of Court decisions:

  "We are debating whether the EPA can impose water quality standards... and we're just going to pretend that's okay." [34:59]

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the critical discussions and insights shared by Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray during the episode, providing listeners with an in-depth understanding of the Supreme Court's interactions with the EPA and other significant legal developments.