The Environmental Legacy of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 1920-2019
John Paul Stevens, the retired Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion granting environmental agencies the power to regulate greenhouse gases, died Tuesday at the age of 99. His decision gave the U.S. government important legal tools for fighting the climate crisis.
"Justice John Paul Stevens was one of the great environmental heroes of the last century," Washington Gov. and climate-focused presidential candidate Jay Inslee wrote in a statement following his death. "His decisions formed the bedrock of America's environmental laws, and his impact on our environment will be felt for generations to come."
Justice John Paul Stevens was one of the great environmental heroes of the last century. His decisions formed the b… https://t.co/q3oE7UcJl4— Jay Inslee (@Jay Inslee)1563333437.0
Stevens was appointed to the court by President Gerald Ford in 1975 and retired in 2010 at the age of 90, having served more than twice the average amount of time for a Supreme Court Justice, the Associated Press reported. He was characterized as moving from the center to the liberal wing of the court during his tenure, but Stevens himself thought that was inaccurate. In his view, the court had moved to the right while his positions had stayed roughly the same.
"I don't think of myself as a liberal at all," Stevens told The New York Times in 2007, as the Associated Press reported. "I think as part of my general politics, I'm pretty darn conservative."
However, Stevens did rule in favor of a number of positions considered liberal, including gay rights, abortion rights and gun control, according to Reuters. He also opposed key Bush administration policies. For example, he wrote the court's decision that detainees at Guantanamo Bay could challenge their incarceration in U.S. courts.
Another disagreement with the Bush administration marked perhaps the cornerstone of his environmental legacy. In Massachusetts v. EPA, he wrote the majority opinion arguing that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had the authority to regulate auto emissions that contribute to climate change, The New York Times reported at the time. Further, he ruled that, if the agency chose not to regulate greenhouse gases, it would have to justify its decision with science.
The Bush administration has argued that the EPA lacked the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and that, even if it had the power, the Bush EPA would not choose to use it. Stevens disagreed.
"Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant,' EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles," Stevens wrote.
His decision paved the way for key Obama-era policies, such as the first auto-emissions standards focused on limiting climate-changing emissions, Grist wrote in a reflection on his retirement in 2010.
Manhattan v. EPA wasn't his only significant environmental decision. Grist highlighted three others:
- Chevron v. NRDC: This 1984 decision was initially seen as a defeat for environmentalists because it said the DC Circuit could not override the Reagan EPA's decision to give more flexibility to companies in honoring their Clean Air Act obligations. However, it set an important precedent that the courts should defer to regulatory agencies when they act on a reasonable interpretation of a law.
- Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter Of Communities For A Great Oregon: In this 1995 case, Stevens reinstated the portion of the Endangered Species Act that protected the habitats of endangered species. It had been struck down based on a narrow interpretation by the DC Circuit, but Stevens argued that the intent of the law was clearly on the side of protecting habitats.
- Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: In this case, decided in 2002, Stevens wrote the majority opinion that upheld land use protections for Lake Tahoe. His ruling reversed the court's abuse of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to block environmental laws.
"Justice Stevens should be remembered as a great justice in environmental cases, not because he bent the law to favor environmental outcomes, but rather because he insisted that the law itself, which dictates environmental outcomes in many cases, be followed," Grist concluded.
Stevens died in a hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Florida following complications from a stroke he suffered on Monday, according to a Supreme Court statement reported by Reuters. He was remembered fondly by his former colleagues.
"He brought to our bench an inimitable blend of kindness, humility, wisdom, and independence. His unrelenting commitment to justice has left us a better nation," Chief Justice John Roberts said in the statement.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline Fight Could Go to the Supreme Court https://t.co/PyjtlKV3vr— Lakota Country Times (@Lakota_Timez) March 2, 2019
By Kenny Stancil
An expert panel of top international and environmental lawyers have begun working this month on a legal definition of "ecocide" with the goal of making mass ecological damage an enforceable international crime on par with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
- Are the Amazon Fires a Crime Against Humanity? - EcoWatch ›
- 'Her Work Will Live On': Climate Movement Mourns Loss of Ecocide ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
After ongoing pressure from environmental groups and Indigenous communities, Bank of America has said it will not finance any oil and gas exploration in the Arctic, making it the last major U.S. financial institution to do so.
- Bank of America Sponsors Polluted Air and Chicago Marathon ... ›
- Youth Activists Hit the Streets to Protest Bank of America - EcoWatch ›
- Environmental and Economic Justice Communities Target Bank of ... ›
By Astrid Caldas
As we reach the official end of hurricane season, 2020 will be one for the record books. Looking back at these long, surprising, sometimes downright crazy past six months (seven if you count when the first named storms actually started forming), there are many noteworthy statistics and patterns that drive home the significance of this hurricane season, and the ways climate change may have contributed to it.
A summary infographic showing hurricane season probability and numbers of named storms predicted from NOAA's 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook. NOAA
The updated 2020 Atlantic hurricane season probability and numbers of named storms. NOAA
- Tropical Storm Theta Is Record-Breaking 29th Storm of 2020 ... ›
- Hurricane Delta Breaks Record for Earliest 25th Named Storm ... ›
By Dana Drugmand
An unprecedented climate lawsuit brought by six Portuguese youths is to be fast-tracked at Europe's highest court, it was announced today.
The European Court of Human Rights said the case, which accuses 33 European nations of violating the applicants' right to life by disregarding the climate emergency, would be granted priority status due to the "importance and urgency of the issues raised."
‘Protect Our Future’<p>Cláudia Agostinho (21), Catarina Mota (20), Martim Agostinho (17), Sofia Oliveira (15), André Oliveira (12) and Mariana Agostinho (8) are <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/09/03/youth-climate-lawsuit-portugal-33-european-countries" target="_blank">bringing the case</a> with nonprofit law firm Global Legal Action Network (<span style="background-color: initial;">GLAN</span>), arguing that none of the countries have sufficiently ambitious targets to cut their emissions.</p><p>Portugal recently sweltered through its <a href="https://www.ipma.pt/pt/media/noticias/news.detail.jsp?f=/pt/media/noticias/textos/resumo-clima-julho-20.html" target="_blank">hottest July in 90 years</a> and has seen a rise in devastating heatwaves and wildfires over recent years due to rising temperatures. Four of the applicants live in Leiria, one of the regions worst-hit by the forest fires that killed more than 120 people in 2017. </p><p>Responding to the development, André Oliveira, 12, said: "It gives me lots of hope to know that the judges in the European Court of Human Rights recognise the urgency of our case." </p><p>"But what I'd like the most would be for European governments to immediately do what the scientists say is necessary to protect our future. Until they do this, we will keep on fighting with more determination than ever."</p>
‘Highly Significant'<p>The decision represents a "highly significant" step, <a href="https://www.glanlaw.org/about-us" target="_blank">GLAN</a> Director Dr. Gearóid Ó Cuinn said in a <a href="https://youth4climatejustice.org/" target="_blank">press release</a>.</p><p>"This is an appropriate response from the Court given the scale and imminence of the threat these young people face from the climate emergency," he added. </p><p>By suing the 33 countries all together, the youths aim to compel these national governments to act more aggressively on climate through a single court order, which would potentially be more effective than pursuing separate lawsuits or lobbying policymakers in each country.</p><p>If successful, the defendant countries would be legally bound not only to ramp up emissions cuts, but also to tackle overseas contributions to climate change including those of their multinational enterprises.</p>
‘Major Hurdle’<p>The <a href="https://youth4climatejustice.org/the-case/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">countries targeted</a> include all of the European Union member states as well as Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, none of which are currently aligned with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris agreement</a> target to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) and pursue a limit of 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F).<a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> </a></p><p><a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Climate Action Tracker rates</a> most of Europe as "insufficient" in terms of its emissions reduction policies based on the Paris target, while Ukraine, Turkey and Russia are assessed as "critically insufficient" – meaning they are on track for a warming of 4 degrees C or higher.</p><p>The European Union has pledged to slash its emissions by <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action/2030_ctp_en" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at least 55 percent by 2030</a>. But the Portuguese youth plaintiffs are calling for cuts of at least 65 percent by 2030, a level that <a href="http://www.caneurope.org/energy/climate-energy-targets" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">European climate campaigners say</a> is necessary to meet the 1.5 degrees warming limit.</p><p> The 33 countries must each respond to the youths' complaint by the end of February, before lawyers representing the plaintiffs will respond to the points of defense. </p><p>"Nothing less than a 65 percent reduction by 2030 will be enough for the EU member states to comply with their obligations to the youth-applicants and indeed countless others," Gerry Liston, legal officer with GLAN, said in a press release.</p><p>"These brave young people have cleared a major hurdle in their pursuit of a judgment which compels European governments to accelerate their climate mitigation efforts."</p><p><span></span><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/11/29/court-advances-landmark-youth-climate-lawsuit-against-33-european-nations" target="_blank">DeSmog</a>. </em></p>
Will concern over the climate crisis stop people from having children?
- 'BirthStrike' Movement Encourages People to Stop Having Children ... ›
- Should You Have Kids Despite Climate Change? - EcoWatch ›