评论
打印
The question in the case, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, turned on the scope of the language of the Clean Air Act.
首席大法官罗伯茨写道，该案的问题涉及到《清洁空气法案》的措辞范围。
Under it, he wrote, Congress had not clearly given the agency sweeping authority to regulate the energy industry.
他写道，根据该法案，国会没有明确授予该机构监管能源行业的广泛权力。
“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” he wrote, quoting an earlier decision.
他援引早些时候的一项裁决写道，“将二氧化碳排放量限制在一定水平，将迫使全国范围内放弃使用煤炭发电，这可能是一种明智的‘解决当今危机的方案’。”
But, he added, “a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”
但是，他补充说，“如此重大和重要的裁决依靠国会本身，或是依靠该代表机构的明确授权而采取行动的机构。”
In dissent, Justice Kagan wrote that the court had substituted its own policy judgment for that of Congress.
大法官卡根对此表示异议，他写道，最高法院用自己的政策判决取代了国会的政策判决。
“Whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” she wrote.
她写道：“无论最高法院还知道什么，该机构对如何应对气候变化却是一无所知。”
“And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.”
“让我们说一个显而易见的事实: 这里的风险很高。 然而，最高法院今天阻止了国会授权的机构采取行动来限制发电厂二氧化碳的排放量。”
“The court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decision maker on climate policy,” she wrote. “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”
“气候政策的决策者是法院自己任命的，而非国会或专门机构。”她写道，“我想不出比这更可怕的事了。”
The ruling curtailed but did not eliminate the agency’s ability to regulate the energy sector, and the agency may still use measures like emission controls at individual power plants.
这项裁决限制了该机构监管能源行业的能力，但并没有消除该机构的职能，该机构可能仍会在个别发电厂使用控制排放等措施。
But the court ruled out more ambitious approaches, like a cap-and-trade system.
但法院否决了更有野心的做法，比如总量管制与交易体系。
It has also expressed skepticism toward the reach of other regulatory agencies, evident in recent decisions arising from the coronavirus pandemic.
法院还对其他监管机构的影响力表示怀疑，这从最近新冠病毒疫情引发的裁决中可见一斑。
The court has ruled, for instance, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was not authorized to impose a moratorium on evictions and that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was powerless to tell large employers to have their workers vaccinated or undergo frequent testing.
例如，最高法院裁定，疾病控制和预防中心无权暂缓驱逐命令，职业安全与健康管理局无权要求大型雇主为其员工接种疫苗或进行频繁的检测。
The question before the justices in the new case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 20-1530, was whether the Clean Air Act allowed the E.P.A. to issue sweeping regulations across the power sector.
在这起编号为20-1530的西弗吉尼亚州诉环境保护局的新案件中，摆在法官面前的问题是，《清洁空气法案》是否允许环保局在电力行业发布全面的法规。
