by Jonathan Hiskes
Stevens (center) with President Obama and Justice Anthony Kennedy last September.Collection of the Supreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court Justice
John Paul Stevens announced his long-expected retirement Friday, meaning we can expect another testy/goofy/“contentious”
confirmation process in the Senate this summer. Stevens’ retirement means a few
other things too:
1. The court loses an environmental rock star.
Stevens, appointed by
Gerald Ford in 1975, amassed an impressive record on environmental protection
cases. He consistently upheld the ability of federal agencies to regulate
pollution, as Dan Farber details
on Legal Planet. In the influential Chevron
v. NRDC (1984), he wrote the majority opinion defending government
agencies’ ability to interpret ambiguous legislation, which enabled the EPA to
set effective clean-air standards.
His crowning environmental
achievement was writing the majority opinion in Massachusetts
v. EPA (2007), which ruled that heat-trapping pollutants endanger
public health and the EPA has an obligation to regulate them. (The Obama EPA is
working on it.)
But Stevens’ influence as
the court’s longest-serving member went beyond his votes. Wrote The New York Times, “beneath his amiable manner lay a canny strategist and
master tactician, qualities he used to win victories that a simple
liberal-conservative head count would appear to be impossible.” Whichever new guy or gal
Obama chooses won’t be able to immediately replace that.
2. The new justice will be a key vote on critical environmental cases. (You don’t get scoops like that just anywhere!)
The state of Texas has already sued the EPA for seeking to limit CO2 emissions. The National Association of
Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and other manufacturing groups
say they will do the same. Any climate action the EPA undertakes will face a
torrent of litigation. Same for any climate/energy legislation, should it ever pass out of Congress. You can expect at least some of these key cases to eventually be argued in front of the highest court in the land.
3. Bad timing for a clean-energy bill, unless it’s already screwed.
The summer confirmation
process adds to an already cramped Senate calendar, which won’t make things
any easier for a climate/energy bill (or financial regulation or immigration reform). And potential energy deal-broker
Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.) sits on the Senate
Judiciary Committee, so he’ll be spending time on confirmation hearings and dealings.
Then again, time may
have already run out for a climate/energy bill in 2010. Once a bill is finally
introduced (soon, they say), it will face five to six weeks of EPA review. That
puts things perilously close to midterm election season, when lawmakers become
even more skittish about tackling major legislation.
Related Links:
Bike love in unlikely places—Detroit, Dallas, Abu Dhabi
Massey coal miner suspected safety problems might prove fatal
U.N. climate talks in Bonn are off to a rocky start