A controversial ruling by the US Supreme Court calls into question countless rules on the environment and health

Kara Horowitz, an environmental law professor at the University of Los Angeles School of Law, told the AP that it was “another blow to the EPA’s authority to address emerging issues like climate change.” EPA is the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Horowitz argues that some laws do not clearly define how to deal with new threats, such as climate change, because there was insufficient knowledge of the law when it was enacted. He agrees with the Chevron doctrine’s rationale that agencies have more expertise than courts in this area.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will not only have consequences for climate policy. Even if public health is again threatened, for example by a new pandemic like Covid, federal rules can be easily challenged in the courts.

The decision will also be decisive for the automotive industry, an important branch of the US economy. Recent traffic safety rules, such as mandatory automatic emergency braking, can be more easily challenged in court. Such rules have not always been well-received by the auto industry, as they have been said to be impractical and too expensive.