Supreme Court freezes Obama’s dirty “clean power plan”

Yesterday the Supreme Court blocked Obama’s dirty “clean power plan.”

This is big.

CFACT doesn’t label EPA’s energy regulations “dirty,” lightly.  “Dirty” is the right word for the trick they tried to pull.

We’ve been exposing and fighting this destructive plan since its inception.

The legislators who wrote the Clean Air Act did so to protect our skies from particulates and other harmful pollutants.  They never contemplated EPA designating CO2, the odorless, invisible gas you just exhaled, a gas essential to all life, as pollution.

EPA had to employ junk science and reach far beyond the law’s intent to come up with this.  We’ve built up an extensive archive of details at

Marc Morano, editor of CFACT’s Climate Depot and host of our ground-breaking new film Climate Hustle, is excited and so should you be:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a decisive blow to President Obama’s so-called EPA climate regulations.”  Marc wrote.  “The Court may have stopped the EPA cold with the EPA regulations unlikely to be implemented before Obama leaves office. This will give political leaders time to mobilize and ensure that the EPA ‘climate rules’ never see the light of day. Delay is nothing short of a victory.  This is a major victory for U.S. sovereignty, energy freedom, climate science and a blow to economic central planning.”

Legally what comes next is further review at the appellate level.  Importantly, the Court retained the final word for itself by imposing its stay until it has a chance to rule on whatever the Court of Appeals decides.  This signals that the majority of the Court has severe doubts about the legality of what Obama and McCarthy tried to foist on us.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court blocking Gina McCarthy from implementing this dirty “clean power plan” while President Obama is still in office buys time for cooler heads to return us to a constructive energy policy.


About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is president and co-founder of CFACT.

  1. Dano2

    I guess corporations want a few thousand more people to die premature deaths.

    Ah, well. Unelected activist judges whine from CFACT coming in three…two…one…



    • Dano2

      Smart people know it was the SCOTUS that found that the EPA must regulate CO2. No word on why you typed Presidential Rule by Decree



      • You are mistaken in your use of the word ‘must’. The correct word is ‘allowed’.

        If regulating CO2 was actually allowed under the language of the statute without mentioning it as a pollutant, it should have been struck down as over-broad. How they allowed Congress to cede that much authority to administration regulatory agencies is unconscionable.

        • Dano2

          Too bad they didn’t ask your SUPERGENIUS self to argue it before the SCOTUS, eh? They coulda used your SUPERGENIUS there, clearly.



              • Where in PA v EPA does the SCOTUS require that the EPA regulate CO2? Never happened. LOL. Cite the case you mean and the text that makes your point. There are several PA v EPA cases.

                    • Dano2

                      Sorry, LOLO, I was thinking of Penna. Coal.

                      Here is your ignorance, writ large and hilarious for all to see and be amused:

                      Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
                      549 U.S. 497 (2007)

                      Brief Fact Summary.

                      The State of Massachusetts is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for denial of their rulemaking petition in connection to regulation of green-house gases.


                      Facts of the case

                      Massachusetts and several other states petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asking EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming from new motor vehicles. Massachusetts argued that EPA was required to regulate these “greenhouse gases” by the Clean Air Act – which states that Congress must regulate “any air pollutant” that can “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

                      EPA denied the petition, claiming that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Even if it did, EPA argued, the Agency had discretion to defer a decision until more research could be done on “the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it.” Massachusetts appealed the denial of the petition to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a divided panel ruled in favor of EPA…(By a 5-4 vote the Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and ruled in favor of Massachusetts.)




                    • You are mistaken in your interpretation of Mass v EPA. All the SCOTUS required the EPA to do is REVIEW their decision and to then articulate a rational basis for not regulating. You have failed to show that the SCOTUS required the EPA to regulate CO2.

                      I will give you this, despite your sloppy citation earlier, you were close.

                    • Dano2

                      You googled and found a disinformation site that told you what you wanted to hear to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay. But using your disinformation site’s logic, there is no rational basis for EPA not regalaytin’, cuz them science is clear.

                      That is: expand your googling to “see-oh-too ain’t no ding-dang plootint” to see how denialists foam and ululate about “see-oh-too is laaaaaahf, ya’ll.

                      Why use your google for that? Cuz Mass v EPA said EPA could regulate CO2 as pollution under Clean Air Act.

                      The Google: still without a ‘wisdom’ button. Educate yourself.



                    • ROTFLMAO!!!
                      I agree complete that Mass v EPA said that the EPA can regulate CO2. That was MY point. Your point was that it ‘must’. Your word, not mine. I will take this as a concession that I am right and that you are mistaken.

                      As for a rational basis for refusing, try ‘cost-benefit’ and ‘economic impact’. Those are valid bases for refusing to regulate.

                      As for CO2 as a pollutant, the science is FAR from settled on that point, your Warmist sites notwithstanding. I will agree, however, that the SCOTUS has ruled that CO2 qualifies as a pollutant.

0 Pings & Trackbacks