“This makes the Court’s emergency file not at all for emergencies,” Judge Elena Kagan wrote of the four dissidents. He said Republican-led states and others that had appealed to the court for immediate relief had not shown that they would suffer the irreparable damage needed to support their cause.
“This Court can suspend a decision under review in an appellate court only in exceptional circumstances and on the basis of the most weighty considerations,” Kagan wrote. He asserted that his confession had been obtained through torture.
The majority move, Kagan insisted, signals the court’s view on the merits, even though the applicants failed to do irreparable damage, showing “we traditionally demanded it”.
The emergency case, he said, “is just another place for meritocracy – except without full information and arguments.”
The five conservative judges did not explain their reasoning for restoring the rule of the Trump era.
The emergency case – referred to by some judges and outside observers as a “shadow case” – is increasingly being criticized by those who say important issues are being resolved without the benefit of a full information program and oral hearings.
While court liberals, particularly Kagan, have often criticized the use of special petitions, this is the first time Roberts has spoken out.
“We’ve seen Supreme Court Justice Roberts join the Democratic nominees in disagreeing with some of the Court’s previous shady rulings,” said Steve Vladek, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas Law School who writes a book. . in the shadow of the shadow. “But today’s decision is the first time that the majority has publicly criticized the way in which it uses and abuses the shadow case. This is a very important development and a strong message for the de facto leader of the Court.”
In the dispute, Kagan wrote that the plaintiffs had failed to provide “concrete evidence” that they would be harmed if the Environmental Protection Agency rule was not restored. He specifically noted that they waited five months after the rule was lifted by the lower court to submit their request. In addition, he said, a federal court of appeals is set to hear the dispute next month and that the rule currently in force had previously been in place for about 50 years.
Last September, Conservative Judge Samuel Alito launched a 10-point rebuttal to an unusual speech, defending the court’s practice when it comes to the emergency case. He emphasized the need to focus on urgent issues, and said that it was even more important now with the help of the judiciary. Alito described the criticism as “very misleading”, stressing that “there is nothing new about emergency applications”.
The court ruling Wednesday restores a rule that limits states’ power under the Clean Water Act to deny federal licenses for projects that affect water within their borders. The Trump-era rule will come back into force as the Biden administration issues a new rule that is expected to be finalized by spring 2023.
It is a loss for more than 20 states led by Democrats, the District of Columbia, environmental groups and tribes that challenged the rule that came into force by the Trump administration in 2020. They said it limited the capacity of states and local communities to weigh in on projects that could harm their communities. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online.
Earthjustice, representing environmental groups and tribes opposed to the Trump rule, criticized the court order.
“The court’s decision to reinstate the Trump administration shows contempt for the integrity of the Clean Water Act and undermines the rights of tribes and states to reconsider and reject dirty fossil fuels that threaten their water,” he said. Moneen Nasmith, Senior Lawyer Group.
A lower court had overturned the rule, prompting a group of Republican-led states and various industries to seek immediate relief from the Supreme Court.
This story has been updated with additional details.
