Matthew Daly’s article on the Supreme Court’s decision dismantling the Chevron doctrine (“What it means for the Supreme Court to throw out Chevron decision, undercutting federal regulators,” Nation, June 28) missed emphasizing this critical point: Stripping federal agencies of their regulatory teeth will make it even harder to tackle the ongoing climate emergency. With a hard-right majority on the bench and a Republican presidential candidate promising to roll back renewable energy initiatives, we are racing toward environmental catastrophe.
The Supreme Court’s majority knows Congress can’t provide crystal clear laws for everything, but their goal in overturning the Chevron doctrine is to increase judicial power. This comes at our cost, and theirs. Courts will be mired in litigation that could have been avoided by letting those with expertise do their jobs. The courts will be even more overwhelmed than they already are — and ultimately, so will the Supreme Court, as these cases make their way to that bench.
With this decision, the Supreme Court assumes power that should belong to Congress, and that’s a tragedy. But let’s focus on the real costs: rising temperatures, extreme weather, and the economic fallout from ignoring climate science.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a gut punch to our collective future. Regulatory bodies need the authority to act on expert knowledge, not be hobbled by judicial second-guessing. We need robust action, not more bureaucratic roadblocks.
Sia Stewart
Conway
