Ķ¡þ©P¨°¶§
¬ü°ê³Ì°ªªk°|¤j´TÁYÀô«O¸pÅv¤O
A spate of decisions over the past two years by the Supreme Court has significantly impaired the Environmental Protection Agency¡¦s authority to limit pollution in the air and water, regulate the use of toxic chemicals and reduce the greenhouse gases that are heating the planet.
¬ü°ê³Ì°ªªk°|¹L¥h2¦~¶¡ªº¤@³s¦ê§P¨M¡AÅýÀô«O¸p¨îªÅ®ð©M¤ô¦¾¬V¡B³W½d¦³¬r¤Æ¾Ç«~¨Ï¥Î¥H¤Î´î¤ÖÅý¦a²y·x¤Æ·Å«Ç®ðÅ骺Åv¤OÅãµÛÁY¡C
The environmental agency has been under fire, the result of a series of cases brought since 2022 by conservative activists who say that EPA regulations have driven up costs for industries ranging from electric utilities to homebuilding. Those arguments have resonated among justices skeptical of government regulation.
«O¦u¬£¬¡°Ê¤H¤h¦Û2022¦~´£°_¤@¨t¦C®×¥ó¡AÅýÀô«O¸p¤@ª½¨ü¨ìÄY¼F§åµû¡C³o¨Ç¤H¤h»¡¡AÀô«O¸pªºªk³W±À°ª¦U¦æ¦U·~¦¨¥»¡A±q¹q·~¨ì¦í¦v«Ø³y¡C³o¨Ç½×ÂI¦b¹ï¬F©²ºÞ¨î«ùÃhºÃºA«×ªº¤jªk©x¤§¶¡²£¥Í¦@»ï¡C
On Friday, the court ended the use of what is known as the Chevron doctrine, a cornerstone of administrative law for 40 years that said that courts should defer to government agencies to interpret unclear laws. That decision threatens the authority of many federal agencies to regulate the environment and also health care, workplace safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.
©P¤¡A³Ì°ªªk°|²×¤î³QºÙ¬°¡u³·¦òÀsì«h¡vªº¨Ï¥Î¡A³o¬O¦æ¬Fªk40¦~¨Óªº°ò¦¡C¸Óì«h»¡¡Aªk°|À³Å¥±q¬F©²¾÷ºc¸àÄÀ¤£½T©wªºªk«ß¡C³oÓ§P¨M«Â¯Ù³\¦hÁp¨¹¾÷ºc³W½dÀô¹ÒªºÅv¤O¡AÁÙ¦³ÂåÀø«O°·¡B¾³õ¦w¥þ¡B¹q«H¡Bª÷¿Ä¦æ·~µ¥µ¥¡C
But more remarkable have been several decisions by the court to intervene to stop environmental regulations before they were decided by lower courts or even before they were implemented by the executive branch.
¦ý§óȱoª`·Nªº¬O¡A¦b¤U¯Åªk°|§P¨M¤§«e¡A¬Æ¦Ü¦b¦æ¬F³¡ªù¹ê¬I¤§«e¡A³Ì°ªªk°|§@¥X´XÓ¤¶¤J§P¨M¥H¤¤¤îÀô¹Òªk³W¡C
On Thursday, the court said the EPA could not limit smokestack pollution that blows across state borders under a measure known as the ¡§good neighbor rule.¡¨ In that case, the court took the surprising step of weighing in while litigation was still pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
©P¥|¡A³Ì°ªªk°|ªí¥Ü¡AÀô«O¸p¤£¯à®Ú¾Ú¤@¶µ¦W¬°¡u·ü¾F³W©w¡vªº±¹¬I¡A¨î§j¹L¦{¬Éªº·Ï§w¦¾¬V¡C¦b³o°_®×¥ó¡A·í¶D³^¤´¦bôÛ¤ñ¨È¯S°ÏÁp¨¹¨µ°j¤W¶Dªk°|µ¥Ô§P¨M®É¡A³Ì°ªªk°|±Ä¨ú¥O¤H¦YÅ媺¤¶¤JÁ|°Ê¡C
The court also acted in an unusually preliminary fashion last year when it struck down a proposed EPA rule known as Waters of the United States that was designed to protect millions of acres of wetlands from pollution, acting before the regulation had even been made final.
³Ì°ªªk°|¥h¦~ÁÙ¥H¤@ºØ¤£´M±`ªº¥ý¦æ¤è¦¡¡A«Ê±þÀô«O¸p¬ãÀÀ¤¤¤@¶µ¦W¬°¡u¬ü°ê¤ô°ì¡vªºªk³W¡A³o¶µªk³W¬O¬°¤F«OÅ@¼Æ¦Ê¸U^¯a·Ã¦a§K¨ü¦¾¬V¡A³Ì°ªªk°|¦b¸Óªk³W½T©w«e´N±Ä¨ú¦æ°Ê¡C
Similarly, in a 2022 challenge to an EPA climate proposal known as the Clean Power Plan, the court limited the agency¡¦s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, even though that rule had not yet taken effect.
¦P¼Ëªº¡A³Ì°ªªk°|2022¦~¹ïÀô«O¸p¦W¬°¡u²M¼ä¯à·½pµe¡vªº®ðÔ´£®×´£¥X²§Ä³¡A¨îÀô«O¸p³W½dµo¹q¼t·Å«Ç®ðÅ鱯©ñªº¯à¤O¡A§Y¨Ï¸Ó³W©wÁÙ¨S¦³¥Í®Ä¡C
Collectively, those decisions now not only endanger many existing environmental rules but also may prevent future administrations from writing new ones, experts say.
±M®a»¡¡A¾ãÅé¦Ó¨¥¡A³o¨Ç§P¨M¦p¤µ¤£¥u¦M¤Î³\¦h²{¦æÀô¹Ò³W©w¡AÁÙ¥i¯à§«Ãª¥¼¨Óªº¬F©²¨î©w·s³W©w¡C
¡§This court has shown an interest in making law in this area and not having the patience to wait for the cases to first come up through the courts,¡¨ said Kevin Minoli, a lawyer who worked in the EPA¡¦s office of general counsel from the Clinton through the Trump administrations. ¡§It¡¦s like, we¡¦re going to tell you the answer before you even ask the question.¡¨
´¿±q¬_ªL¹y¦Ü¤t´¶¬F©²¥ô¾Àô«O¸pªk«ßÁ`ÅU°Ý¿ì¤½«Çªº«ß®v¦Ì¿Õ¨½ªí¥Ü¡A¡u³oӳ̰ªªk°|¤wªí²{¥X¦b¦¹¤@»â°ì¨î©wªk«ßªº¿³½ì¡A¦Ó¥B¨S¦³@¤ßµ¥«Ý®×¥ó¥ý¸g¥Ñ¦U¯Åªk°|¼f²z¡C±¡ªp´N¹³¡A§Ú̱N§i¶D§Aµª®×¡A¬Æ¦Ü¦b§A°Ý°ÝÃD¤§«e¡v¡C