The Supreme Court is Bypassing Science—We Can't Ignore It

Recent court decisions undermine environmental protections and sideline scientific expertise

Introduction: The United States has a long-standing tradition of relying on the best available science to inform regulations that protect and manage natural resources. However, two recent decisions by the Supreme Court have raised concerns about the role of science in shaping environmental protections. In the cases of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and West Virginia v. EPA, the court has disregarded scientific consensus and sidestepped the customary lawmaking process, resulting in weakened environmental regulations. This trend not only poses risks to public and environmental health but also undermines the trust in scientific expertise. It is crucial for scientists to engage in the policymaking process to ensure that science remains central in environmental legislation. Trusting the Best Available Science: Congress has explicitly stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should use the best available science to develop rules and enforce environmental laws. The EPA has established robust mechanisms to gather scientific knowledge and employs numerous scientists to guide policymaking. The agency also welcomes external input through its Science Advisory Board and public comment processes. While these mechanisms have limitations, challenges to regulations have historically been met with deference to scientific and technical expertise. The CWA and Sackett v. EPA: The protection of wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA) has been a contentious issue. In the Sackett case, the court deviated from previous rulings and scientific consensus by inventing a new test to determine which wetlands are protected. This decision, which ignored the intent of Congress and scientific understanding, has resulted in weakened federal protections for wetlands. The implications are significant, as wetlands provide essential benefits such as flood control and improved water quality. West Virginia and the Emerging Major Questions Doctrine: In the West Virginia case, the court curtailed the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The majority opinion invoked the major questions doctrine, which suggests that major decisions with significant political or economic effects must have clear congressional authorization. This doctrine, emerging as a response to agency deference, undermines the role of scientific information and expertise in environmental protections. Conclusion: The recent decisions by the Supreme Court highlight the need for scientists to engage in the policymaking process to ensure that environmental regulations are based on sound science. Congress must play an active role in clarifying its intent and reaffirming the importance of scientific expertise in shaping environmental legislation. Scientists can contribute by providing policymakers with the best available science, engaging with professional organizations, and participating in advisory boards. The public expects scientists to be at the table when environmental regulations are being developed and enforced, and it is crucial to uphold the role of science in protecting our environment and public health.