Search

In recent decades, climate change events have surged in both frequency and intensity. Paradoxically, the most vulnerable and economically disadvantaged states, despite contributing the least to global emissions, face the gravest consequences. Developed nations, despite their wealth of resources, have consistently failed to act in the face of this crisis. For example, the recent United States Supreme Court Decision, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, limited the administrative state's rulemaking authority and thus, its ability to enact necessary climate policy. This decision, based in the infamous "major questions doctrine," asserts that administrative agencies must have explicit authority from Congress when deciding questions of vast economic and political significance - even in times of crisis. This Note, in four parts, traces the evolution of the American judiciary's interpretation of administrative rulemaking from Chevron to the present, ultimately urging Congress to enact legislation that requires courts to defer to the expertise of administrative agencies when interpreting the law--ultimately strengthening the administrative state and its ability to fight climate change. This Note aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding climate policy and administrative law, emphasizing the imperative for coordinated efforts to address the climate crisis at both the national and international levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]