The impact of Supreme Court rulings on environmental law has been profound and far-reaching in recent years, fundamentally reshaping the regulatory landscape that governs our nation’s natural resources. As we progress through 2025, the conservative supermajority on the Court continues to issue decisions that significantly constrain federal agencies’ authority to interpret and implement environmental statutes. The Court’s recent decisions in cases like City and County of San Francisco v. EPA (March 2025) and the landmark overturning of the Chevron doctrine in June 2024 represent a seismic shift in the balance of power between the judiciary, executive agencies, and Congress. These rulings reflect a judicial philosophy that prioritizes strict statutory interpretation, skepticism of broad administrative authority, and a more limited view of federal environmental regulation-a perspective that will shape environmental law for generations to come.
The transformation of environmental jurisprudence has been cemented by a series of decisions that consistently limit the ability of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency to defend and enforce their rules. As Holly Doremus, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, observed during a recent Environmental Law Institute panel, “The conservative Supreme Court supermajority has been cutting back on executive power.” While proponents of these decisions argue they properly restore the constitutional separation of powers and promote democratic accountability through Congress, critics contend that these rulings effectively transfer power to the judiciary itself, with Doremus noting that the Court is “cutting back in favor of aggrandizing judicial power.” This judicial realignment arrives at a pivotal moment as Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House with an agenda that generally favors reduced environmental regulation.
The Demise of Chevron Deference
The Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine in June 2024 represents perhaps the most consequential shift in administrative law in four decades. For nearly 40 years, the Chevron framework had directed courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, recognizing that agencies possess specialized expertise that generalist judges typically lack. This doctrine provided a foundation for environmental regulation, allowing agencies like the EPA to adapt environmental statutes to address emerging challenges and evolving scientific understanding.
The Court’s 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce fundamentally altered this landscape. As explained by the Southern Environmental Law Center’s Litigation Director Kym Meyer, “For decades, courts have followed a unanimous Supreme Court decision called Chevron in upholding reasonable agency interpretations of statutes where Congress left room for different ways of applying the law. This approach gave deference to agency expertise where complex regulatory matters, like environmental protections, were at stake.” The abandonment of this approach means individual judges now decide the best reading of environmental statutes, even in technically complex areas where they lack specialized knowledge.
This shift has immediate practical consequences for environmental litigation. Without Chevron deference, agencies face a significantly higher burden when defending their interpretations of environmental statutes. Each federal judge now has greater latitude to substitute their own reading of statutory text, potentially creating inconsistent applications of environmental laws across different jurisdictions. As Meyer warned, “That is a recipe for chaos, as hundreds of federal judges-who lack the expertise of agency personnel-are certain to reach inconsistent results on the meaning of federal laws as applied to complex, technical issues.” This fragmentation threatens the uniform application of environmental protections nationwide and creates uncertainty for both regulated entities and environmental advocates.
The San Francisco Decision: Narrowing Clean Water Act Authority
The Court’s March 4, 2025, decision in City and County of San Francisco v. EPA exemplifies how the post-Chevron landscape is reshaping environmental law. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Court held that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act by including “end-result” provisions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. These provisions had prohibited discharges that “contribute to a violation of any applicable water quality standard” for receiving waters or that “create pollution, contamination, or nuisance” as defined by state law.
The Court’s reasoning hinged on a textualist reading of Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act, which allows the EPA to impose “any more stringent limitation, including those necessary to meet water quality standards.” The majority concluded that the term “limitation” only encompasses restrictions imposed “from without”-specific actions a permittee must take or avoid-rather than general water quality outcomes the permittee must achieve. This interpretation significantly constrains the EPA’s ability to hold permittees accountable for the actual environmental impacts of their discharges.
The practical implications of this ruling are substantial. The EPA must now specify exactly what actions permittees must take to comply with water quality standards, rather than holding them responsible for achieving those standards. This approach places the burden on the agency to anticipate all potential compliance measures in advance, a nearly impossible task given the complexity of water pollution and the unique circumstances of each discharge. As Justice Barrett warned in her dissent, this could lead to delays or even denials in the NPDES permit application process, as the EPA may require more extensive resources and information to craft individualized and prescriptive permit conditions.
The Sackett Decision: Redefining “Waters of the United States”
The Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA represents another significant constraint on federal environmental authority, specifically regarding the scope of the Clean Water Act. In this case, the Court overturned nearly two decades of legal precedent by eliminating the “significant nexus” standard that had extended Clean Water Act protections to wetlands hydrologically connected to navigable waters. The Court instead adopted a much narrower interpretation, holding that wetlands are only protected if it is difficult to distinguish them from a larger body of water.
This ruling constituted a rollback of Clean Water Act protections far beyond what even the Trump administration had envisioned in its regulatory efforts. The decision sent the Biden administration “into a regulatory tailspin,” forcing a fundamental reconsideration of federal water protection policy. The practical effect has been to remove federal protection from the majority of the nation’s wetlands, leaving these ecologically vital areas vulnerable to development and pollution.
The Sackett decision illustrates the Court’s willingness to dramatically narrow the scope of environmental statutes through strict textual interpretation. By rejecting the “significant nexus” standard established in Rapanos v. United States-a standard articulated by Justice Kennedy, a Republican appointee-the Court demonstrated that even long-standing interpretations with bipartisan support are not safe from reconsideration. This approach creates significant regulatory uncertainty and undermines the stability of environmental protection frameworks that had guided permitting decisions for decades.
The West Virginia Decision: Limiting Climate Regulation
The Court’s 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA similarly constrained federal environmental authority, specifically regarding climate change regulation. In this case, the Court rejected the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which had sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. The Court articulated a new “major questions doctrine,” holding that agencies must have clear congressional authorization to decide issues of vast economic and political significance.
This doctrine has proven to be a powerful tool for challenging environmental regulations, particularly those addressing climate change. By requiring explicit congressional authorization for major regulatory initiatives, the Court effectively prevents agencies from adapting existing statutory frameworks to address emerging environmental challenges. Given the difficulty of passing new environmental legislation in a polarized Congress, this requirement significantly hampers the federal government’s ability to respond to pressing environmental concerns like climate change.
The West Virginia decision exemplifies the Court’s skepticism toward broad agency interpretations of environmental statutes. By requiring clear congressional authorization for significant regulatory actions, the Court has shifted power away from expert agencies and toward both the judiciary and Congress. This approach aligns with the conservative majority’s view that major policy decisions should be made by elected representatives rather than administrative agencies, but it also creates substantial obstacles to addressing environmental problems that may not have been specifically contemplated when existing statutes were enacted.
The Shift in Judicial Power
The Court’s recent environmental decisions reflect a fundamental shift in judicial power that extends beyond specific statutory interpretations. As Professor Doremus observed, the Court is not simply returning power to Congress but is “aggrandizing judicial power” itself. This shift has significant implications for environmental governance, as it places generalist judges in the position of making technical determinations about complex environmental issues.
The abandonment of Chevron deference exemplifies this power shift. Without the requirement to defer to reasonable agency interpretations, judges now have greater authority to determine the meaning of environmental statutes. This approach may lead to inconsistent applications of environmental laws across different jurisdictions, as judges with varying perspectives and expertise reach different conclusions about the same statutory provisions. The resulting fragmentation threatens the uniform application of environmental protections nationwide.
The Court’s embrace of the major questions doctrine similarly enhances judicial power by allowing courts to determine which regulatory questions are sufficiently “major” to require explicit congressional authorization. This determination is inherently subjective and provides courts with significant discretion to invalidate regulations they deem too consequential to be authorized by general statutory language. The doctrine effectively creates a judicial veto over significant regulatory initiatives, even when those initiatives might reasonably fall within an agency’s statutory authority.
Implications for Environmental Litigation Strategy
The Court’s recent environmental decisions necessitate a fundamental reconsideration of environmental litigation strategies. Environmental advocates can no longer rely on judicial deference to agency expertise or broad interpretations of environmental statutes. Instead, they must adapt to a legal landscape that prioritizes strict textual interpretation and skepticism of administrative authority.
One emerging strategy involves focusing on state-level environmental protection. As federal environmental authority contracts, state environmental laws and regulations become increasingly important for maintaining environmental protections. Environmental advocates are increasingly turning to state courts and state administrative processes to advance environmental objectives that may be difficult to achieve at the federal level. This approach leverages the fact that state environmental laws often provide protections that exceed federal requirements and may be interpreted by state courts in ways that better align with environmental protection goals.
Another strategy involves emphasizing clear statutory text and legislative history that supports environmental protection. Given the Court’s focus on textual interpretation, environmental advocates must ground their arguments in the specific language of environmental statutes rather than broader policy objectives. This approach requires careful analysis of statutory text and legislative history to identify provisions that explicitly authorize the environmental protections being sought. By focusing on clear statutory mandates, advocates may be able to overcome the Court’s skepticism of broad agency interpretations.
The Role of Congress in Environmental Protection
The Court’s recent decisions place increased emphasis on the role of Congress in environmental protection. By limiting agency authority to interpret and implement environmental statutes, the Court effectively requires more specific congressional direction for significant environmental initiatives. This approach aligns with the conservative majority’s view that major policy decisions should be made by elected representatives rather than administrative agencies.
However, this emphasis on congressional action presents significant practical challenges given the current political landscape. Environmental legislation has become increasingly difficult to enact in a polarized Congress, making it unlikely that new comprehensive environmental statutes will be passed in the near future. This reality creates a significant obstacle to addressing emerging environmental challenges that may not have been specifically contemplated when existing statutes were enacted.
The Court’s approach also raises questions about the appropriate balance between legislative and administrative authority in environmental governance. While Congress certainly has the constitutional authority to make major policy decisions, it lacks the technical expertise and capacity to address the myriad specific issues that arise in environmental regulation. The traditional model of congressional delegation to expert agencies recognizes this reality, allowing Congress to establish broad policy objectives while leaving the technical details to those with specialized knowledge. By constraining this model, the Court potentially undermines the effectiveness of environmental governance.
The Future of Environmental Regulation
The trajectory of the Court’s environmental jurisprudence suggests a continued contraction of federal environmental regulatory authority. With several environmental cases still pending and others making their way through the lower courts, the conservative majority appears poised to further limit agency discretion and narrow the scope of environmental statutes. This approach aligns with the incoming Trump administration’s policy agenda, which generally favors reduced environmental regulation.
One significant case to watch involves EPA’s latest attempt to curb carbon emissions from power plants. Given the Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA, this regulation will likely face significant scrutiny under the major questions doctrine. Similarly, litigation over the White House’s authority to set National Environmental Policy Act rules could further constrain federal environmental authority. These cases will provide additional opportunities for the Court to articulate its vision of environmental governance and the proper role of administrative agencies.
The Court’s approach to climate litigation also bears watching. While the Court recently rejected fossil fuel companies’ attempt to move climate liability cases from state to federal courts, this issue is expected to return to the Court in the future. These cases raise important questions about the appropriate forum for addressing climate impacts and the respective roles of federal and state courts in climate governance. As Professor Donald Kochan of George Mason University noted, “The public needs to understand that these are not cases principally about climate change. They are about the separation of powers and the proper division of authority between the federal and state governments.”
Balancing Environmental Protection and Constitutional Principles
The Court’s environmental jurisprudence reflects a broader tension between environmental protection objectives and constitutional principles regarding separation of powers and federalism. Proponents of the Court’s approach argue that it properly respects constitutional boundaries and promotes democratic accountability by requiring major policy decisions to be made by elected representatives rather than administrative agencies. From this perspective, the Court is not anti-environmental but rather pro-constitutional, ensuring that environmental governance occurs within proper institutional frameworks.
Critics, however, contend that the Court’s approach undermines effective environmental protection by constraining the ability of expert agencies to address complex environmental challenges. They argue that the technical nature of environmental issues makes them particularly suited for agency expertise rather than judicial determination. From this perspective, the Court’s emphasis on strict textual interpretation and skepticism of administrative authority fails to account for the practical realities of environmental governance.
This tension reflects fundamental questions about how our constitutional system should address complex modern challenges like environmental protection. The Constitution’s framers could not have anticipated the scale and complexity of contemporary environmental issues, nor the technical expertise required to address them effectively. The Court’s current approach prioritizes traditional constitutional principles over pragmatic considerations about effective environmental governance, reflecting a particular vision of constitutional interpretation that values textual fidelity and institutional boundaries over policy outcomes.
Conclusion
The impact of Supreme Court rulings on environmental law has been profound and far-reaching, fundamentally reshaping the regulatory landscape that governs our nation’s natural resources. The Court’s recent decisions in cases like City and County of San Francisco v. EPA, the overturning of the Chevron doctrine, Sackett v. EPA, and West Virginia v. EPA reflect a judicial philosophy that prioritizes strict statutory interpretation, skepticism of broad administrative authority, and a more limited view of federal environmental regulation. This approach has significantly constrained the ability of agencies like the EPA to interpret and implement environmental statutes, potentially undermining decades of environmental protection efforts.
As we progress through 2025, the conservative supermajority on the Court appears poised to continue this trajectory, further limiting federal environmental authority and shifting power toward both the judiciary and Congress. This approach aligns with the incoming Trump administration’s policy agenda, which generally favors reduced environmental regulation. The resulting legal landscape presents significant challenges for environmental advocates, who must adapt their strategies to a judicial environment that is increasingly skeptical of broad agency interpretations and expansive environmental protections.
The Court’s environmental jurisprudence reflects broader tensions between environmental protection objectives and constitutional principles regarding separation of powers and federalism. Resolving these tensions will require thoughtful consideration of how our constitutional system can effectively address complex modern challenges like environmental protection while respecting fundamental constitutional boundaries. This conversation will shape environmental governance for generations to come, determining how our nation balances environmental protection with other important values and principles.
Citations:
- Supreme Court Environment Cases to Watch in 2025
- Supreme Court Decision Jeopardizes Environmental Protections
- Takeaways from 2023’s Environmental Law Battles
- Supreme Court Opinion: City of San Francisco v. EPA
- Supreme Court Waves Goodbye to Clean Water Act End-Result Requirements
- Supreme Court Narrows EPA Authority in Clean Water Act Permit Ruling
- What to Watch in This U.S. Supreme Court Term
- Research Paper on Environmental Law and Supreme Court Decisions
- Study on Judicial Review of Environmental Regulations
- In the Wake of the Chevron Decision: Environmental Impacts
- The Supreme Court’s Top-10 Environmental Law Decisions
- January 2025 Updates to the Climate Case Charts
- New Supreme Court Decisions Jeopardize Pollution and Climate Efforts
- Supreme Court Environmental Law Cases Overview
- Noteworthy Environmental Cases to Watch in 2025
- Advocating for Climate Rules After Supreme Court Power Grab
- Supreme Court Decisions That Gutted Environmental Protections in 2024
- Climate Litigation Updates for March 2025
- Environmental Regulation After Loper Bright and Corner Post Decisions
- People’s Guide to the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term
- Supreme Court Limits EPA’s Authority to Fight Climate Change
- Research on Supreme Court Environmental Jurisprudence Trends
- Study on Judicial Review of Environmental Agency Actions
- Analysis of Supreme Court Environmental Law Decisions
- Research on Clean Water Act Judicial Interpretations
- Psychiatric Illness and Clinical Negligence: Secondary Victims Claims
- Study on Environmental Regulation and Supreme Court Decisions
- Research on Judicial Deference in Environmental Law Cases
- Analysis of Clean Air Act Supreme Court Decisions
- Supreme Court Cases Database and Information
