West Virginia v. EPA (2022)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Several states challenged the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to shift electricity generation from coal to cleaner sources. The Supreme Court held 6–3 that the EPA lacked authority to implement such sweeping changes under the Clean Air Act without clear congressional authorization. The Court invoked the major questions doctrine, which requires explicit congressional approval for agencies to decide issues of vast economic and political significance.

3) Why It Mattered
This case significantly limited federal agency power, curbing how far executive agencies can go in interpreting broad statutes. It reshaped administrative law and regulatory authority.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: A new constitutional check on agency rulemaking in major policy areas.
• Took Away: EPA’s ability to independently impose wide-reaching climate regulations without direct congressional approval.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
Supporters saw it as a vital separation-of-powers safeguard, ensuring Congress—not unelected agencies—makes big policy choices. Critics say it hobbled the federal government’s ability to respond to climate change.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
Federal agencies now face stricter limits: they can’t make sweeping rules on major issues unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This makes big policy moves harder without new legislation.

• Administrative Law
• Epa
• Major Questions Doctrine
• Separation of Powers