“EPA’s conclusions in the Endangerment Finding are irrational and cannot support such a dramatic expansion of regulatory authority.”
“EPA’s conclusions in the Endangerment Finding are irrational and cannot support such a dramatic expansion of regulatory authority.”
In short, the claim is that the court is being asked to find the EPA has overstepped its constitutional authority in the manner that has enforced the law. On page 3, it’s asking without outright asking the question “how is it possible for no one have standing to challenge the tailoring rule”. Also, if the EPA bases their judgement on falsehood, then the appeals courts have the ability to overturn the judgement.
“Merits” meaning if the law itself is permissible, not if it’s wise.
There’s a potential problem here. As with the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the merits of law, not on the facts of a case. I know that sounds strange but that’s why the Supreme Court hears arguments, not testimony. I don’t know what level of “egregious” is necessary to overturn a lower court’s finding on facts.