Supreme Court strikes down Obama's key environmental plan to regulate cancer-causing air pollution
'Today's ruling is a victory for family budgets and job creation in Michigan'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The justices ruled 5-4 on Monday striking down the Obama administration's attempt to limit power plant’s mercury, coal and oil fire-powered emissions.
Bill Schuette, Michigan’s attorney general, applauded today’s ruling in a statement.
"Today's ruling is a victory for family budgets and job creation in Michigan. The court agreed that we can and must find a constructive balance in protecting the environment and continuing Michigan's economic comeback."
However, Nancy Pelosi, the court’s House Minority Leader, said that the decision places “polluters before people” and that it creates “new obstacles for the Environmental Protection Agency's mission to protect our health and environment.”
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority opinion stating that the EPA “gave cost no thought at all.”
According to CNN, the industry would have been forced to spend billions to regulate pollutants which are already controlled by the Clean Air Act programs.
The White House said they were disappointed in the defeat and argued that the air pollutants in question cause major health risks such as birth defects and cancers.
Neil Gormley, an attorney for Earthjustice DC, told CNN that the ruling doesn't change the EPA's authority to protect the public from pollution.
"When you add up all the costs and all the benefits. The health benefits of this rule dwarf the costs to the industry. The public gets 9 dollars of health benefits for every what 1 dollar the industry spends."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments