RELEASE: CFACT challenges constitutionality of EPA emissions rules in Supreme Court

By |2013-12-27T14:43:44+00:00December 23rd, 2013|News, Press Releases|11 Comments


December 23, 2013

CFACT files amicus brief with Supreme Court:

EPA emissions rules violate Constitution’s separation of powers

They are harmful, arbitrary, capricious and fraudulent

Washington, DC: The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow has filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of petitioner Southeastern Legal Foundation in its action on the merits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide “endangers” the public health and welfare of American citizens, by “contributing to” climate change. CFACT argues that –

  1. To advance its global warming and energy policy objectives, EPA has attempted to rewrite the Clean Air Act and regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources, in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers provisions.
  2. EPA’s actions are fundamentally flawed and contrary to the public interest, because: (a) the agency failed to consider the adverse impacts that its regulations will have on the health and welfare of Americans, and on wildlife and environmental quality; (b) its findings of harm are contrary to mainstream climate science, empirical data and unbiased analyses; and (c) even full compliance with EPA’s destructive regulations would achieve zero benefits, because emissions from other countries will continue increasing total atmospheric GHG levels.

Through these illegal actions, EPA seeks to control CO2 emissions from vehicles, electrical generating plants, and eventually nearly everything Americans make, grow, ship, eat and do. The regulations will adversely affect our livelihoods, liberties, living standards, legal system, health, welfare and life spans.

The brief was written by CFACT senior policy analyst Paul Driessen and counsel of record Paul Kamenar, who earlier this year wrote the Committee’s amicus brief in support of SLF’s petition for certiorari in this case. Their analysis details how EPA repeatedly violated Constitutional provisions that only Congress can write laws, whereas the Executive Branch is required to follow the laws as written, and not as it might wish the laws had been written. To cite just one example, EPA changed clear Clean Air Act provisions from 250 tons per year of carbon dioxide to 100,000 tpy, to cover coal-fired power plants but not millions of other industrial facilities, apartment buildings, hospitals and even homes at this time.

CFACT’s brief also underscores the harmful, arbitrary, capricious and even fraudulent character of EPA’s ruling. EPA’s regulations will severely impact the physical and psychological well-being of millions of Americans, by raising energy and business operating costs, causing numerous layoffs, impairing family incomes, and causing greater stress on people forced to go on welfare or work multiple jobs for lower pay, increased risk of heart attacks and strokes, higher incidences of depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse, and generally lower life expectancies. The agency’s GHG rules will also force greater reliance on wind turbines, which kill millions of birds and bats every year.

The brief notes that EPA conducted no scientific analysis of its own but relied almost entirely on Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change findings. It summarizes many of the questionable to fraudulent methods the EPA and IPCC used to justify their conclusion that CO2 is causing “dangerous” climate change, contrary to a growing body of mainstream science that shows any changes are natural in origin.

The brief augments comments and testimony by CFACT experts to EPA on the carbon dioxide “endangerment” matter, numerous articles for newspapers and online news centers, the outstanding work of our website, and programs presented before UN climate conferences.

CFACT amicus brief to US SCt in SLF v EPA – Dec 2013


supreme court logo

In the Supreme Court of the United States


 Read the brief


CFACT’s prior brief in support of the petition for certiorari


  1. Ralph Walton December 23, 2013 at 10:40 PM

    The EPA is getting a might too big for it’s boots and needs to have its teeth pulled and its funding withdrawn. It is working outside the constitution and trying to bypass the Congress. The EPA is only a creature of government and not a legislator. Close it down.

    • CFACT Ed December 24, 2013 at 7:45 AM

      Shut down, or reform?

      • Ralph Walton December 24, 2013 at 9:28 AM

        EPA CFACT.

        Reforming an Institution like the EPA which has had open
        reign for such a long time would be a difficult task particularly with staff that are obviously firmly committed to a certain ideological position. Firstly one would need to re-evaluate the need for such a radical organisation like the EPA at all. Quite probably you could do quite well without it. Anyhow you don’t reform those type of QANGO’s by half measures. If you chose to reform the EPA rather than retire it, you would need to get rid of its entire upper echelon staff in order to realign its governing attitude, and not leave anyone of influence that could white ant any of the changes made. In our recent Australian Federal election, the incoming Government under Prime Minister Tony Abbott, immediately sacked the entire Climate Commission because, like the EPA, it had compromised its independence over years and become radically partisan to the our left political wing i.e. (Labor/Greens etc.) and also became totally and uncritically captive to the edicts of the IPCC, which is also predominately politically left Labor orientated.

        Our own Government scientific research body , the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) has also come under increasing fire over the past few years because it has also compromised its independence, and taken an extreme left
        wing political partisan position on climate change: And it has also become captive to the whims of the IPCC .The Abbott government under the respective Minister has now demanded that The CSIRO explain and justify its position on climate change and alternate energy policies advice by proving it. Our media have repeatedly asked the CSIRO over an extended period to explain its determinations on climate change. It has refused to co-operate for years, and won’t supply satisfactory explanations for any of it climate change work. . Under the new Minister’s directions to the CSIRO, the information requested is starting to flow. Much of it defies satisfactory explanation as just regurgitated climate scaremongering which underpins sensationalistic climate change claims. Things are going to
        change in the CSIRO, and it seems these changes will happen very quickly or jobs will be axed. The now Minister is a hardened political operative who takes no prisoners and will tolerate no nonsense.
        No one will be pulling the wool over his eyes. Watch this space.

        Anyhow the USA needs to take firm control of the EPA one way or the other and start directing it, rather than the what the EPA currently do to the USA by controlling and determining what the USA do. Or get rid of it permanently.

  2. notbent December 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

    Seems to me a great way to rein in the EPA’s over-reaching power is by drastically cut their funding. Say by at least 50%. Re-evaluate next year for further cuts needed.

    • Ralph Walton December 24, 2013 at 3:52 PM

      Great idea @notbent. A country can’t have agencies like the EPA over-riding the decisions of the executive arm of government. It is one thing to offer sound balanced, and unbiased eco advice to Government, and another thing entirely to think you are the government and the laws of the land don’t apply you. The EPA is just simply an out of control government department intoxicated by the an assumed moral authority that is somehow saving the planet and that high minded mission trumps the countries legislative authority. The EPA need to be pulled up like they hit a brick wall. And personally I wouldn’t hesitate to sack the lot of them at a moment’s notice and wind the department up. That would send a very unambiguous message to those peddling green agendas that they need to stay within the framework of good governance and pull their bloody heads in.

  3. jameshrust December 24, 2013 at 8:16 PM

    John Beale, recently sentenced to 32 months, was a top advisor to the Office of Air and Radiation which crafted these rules. He should be asked to testify on this challenge and maybe provide some honest answers.

  4. John December 26, 2013 at 2:15 PM

    Start the changes at the top, the president.

  5. Bryan December 27, 2013 at 4:29 AM

    This will always happen with unregulated quangos – they get given too much power and then become determined to make the most of it – never mind the poor taxpayer or those at the receiving end of their insane ideas.
    All such quangos, and EPA in particular, should justify everything they do to a congress committee, monthly – Then at least we would have someone responsible that we can kick out.
    Having said that, the EPA leaders should be put on trial for a gross abuse of power.

  6. sabretruthtiger December 27, 2013 at 8:54 AM

    it’s blatantly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 50 that has bothered to look into the science that there is absolutely nothing to this Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming.
    Empirical data shows that the climate sensitivity is very low, the feedbacks are negative.
    any human signal is completely lost in the natural noise.
    The Mediaeval Warm period was warmer than today with much less CO2.
    A warmer climate is actually beneficial, there is zero evidence that a warmer climate will cause damage overall.

    It is obvious that it’s all about global control and wealth transfer, in fact it’s so blindingly obvious I wonder what planet most of the public are living on.

  7. JRTJH March 14, 2014 at 1:24 PM

    It’s human nature to be competitive. It’s also human nature to expect to win. Our forefathers expected this competition and wrote the “checks and balances” into our initial documents. Unfortunately, years ago, the legislative and executive branches formed the EPA to “help manage things”. As the EPA formed its role, Congress looked the other way, too busy with its need to compete and win in future elections. They ignored the growing EPA. The executive branch focused on winning along with Congress, and while nobody monitored it’s growth and power, the EPA became this “cancer” with a desire, no a need to win. The executive branch recognized the ability to gain “control” by using the EPA to help force its doctrine. This lifeform called the EPA, this “out of control cancer,” needs to be excised for the health of the patient. Otherwise, it will consume us with it’s own needs, not the needs of the nation.

  8. Mr_Constitution July 7, 2014 at 8:09 AM

    Not only is the EPA too big for it’s briches, it is also not allowed by Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. If the Supreme Court were doing it’s real job, they would close the EPA and put these climate ding-a-lings in garbage trucks in NY City where the real garbage piles up.

Comments are closed.