As the new Supreme Court of US term begins, significant cases poised for consideration could reshape critical environmental laws, raising concerns among advocates for climate and ecological protections. Among the cases on the docket, one challenges the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) enforcement of the Clean Water Act, a cornerstone of U.S. environmental legislation.

In this case, fossil fuel industry groups are backing arguments from the city of San Francisco, contesting the EPA’s regulatory authority over water permits. The implications of this case could reverberate throughout the environmental regulatory landscape, potentially undermining decades of progress in protecting water quality and public health. Legal experts warn that a ruling favoring industry could set a precedent limiting the federal government’s ability to enforce essential protections, creating a pathway for increased pollution and degradation of vital water resources.

Additionally, the Court is set to hear another pivotal case regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their proposed actions. This case may seek to narrow the scope of what constitutes an adequate environmental impact review, particularly concerning climate analyses. If the Court decides to impose stricter limitations, it could significantly hinder the government’s ability to address climate change comprehensively, as agencies would have fewer obligations to consider the long-term effects of their decisions on the environment.

Moreover, the revival of the nondelegation doctrine is on the table, a legal principle that asserts Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to executive agencies. This doctrine could curtail the authority of federal agencies like the EPA to enact rules and regulations necessary for enforcing environmental laws. A ruling in favor of reining in agency power could create additional hurdles for federal efforts to combat pollution, regulate emissions, and implement climate policies.

The ramifications of these cases extend beyond the immediate legal framework, potentially shifting the balance of power in favor of industrial interests. Proponents of environmental regulation express alarm that a series of unfavorable rulings could weaken the government’s ability to implement critical safeguards against environmental degradation and climate change. With the growing urgency of the climate crisis, the stakes have never been higher.

Critics argue that the Court’s leanings in these cases reflect a broader trend of prioritizing economic interests over environmental protections. They warn that diminishing the power of federal agencies to enforce regulations could lead to increased pollution and environmental harm, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities already facing the brunt of climate change.

As the term unfolds, environmental advocates and industry stakeholders alike are bracing for outcomes that could redefine the regulatory landscape. The potential for significant changes in environmental law is not only a legal matter but also a pressing public policy issue that will impact future generations.

In a time when climate-related disasters are becoming more frequent and severe, the decisions made by the Supreme Court this term could have lasting implications. The balance of power between federal agencies and industry interests hangs in the balance, with profound consequences for the nation’s environmental future.