The irony of the rollicking Independence Day parade I attended with my kids last week, with its marching bands, costumed people, and colorful floats, is that our U.S. government is in more disarray than it has ever been. The past few months, with a partisan Supreme Court scrutinizing its rightward shift and the unknowns of November’s election, have highlighted the fragility of our democracy. The legislative branch of government, for all its flaws, represents the safest path forward for those of us who want to breathe air, drink water, and avoid the heat.
The Supreme Court ruling Roper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo On June 27, a ruling was handed down that overturned the so-called “Chevron Deference,” which puts corporate profits above public health and weakens agencies’ ability to enforce regulations such as limiting power plant pollution. It said that agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are not actually environmental experts, but rather judges. Now the EPA must go to court to fight industries that dump pollutants into our water and pollute our air, because their right to make money takes precedence over everyone’s right to breathe.
There is an obvious problem with this: judges are not experts on everything, only legal experts. When I treat a patient, I don’t present a range of treatments to the judge and ask them to decide what to prescribe; I work with the patient to find the appropriate treatment. Similarly, I don’t want judges and oil companies to decide how much environmental damage is enough, because they are clearly not experts in environmental or public health protection, and don’t necessarily have the public interest at heart.
The downstream impact of this decision is far-reaching. Everything that requires regulation could be affected, from publicly funded health plans (CMS) to the Food and Drug System (FDA) to the environment. For decades, the Chevron ruling protected plans like Medicare and Medicaid, and dedicated federal agencies like CMS were tasked with interpreting and enforcing regulations. Environmental, public health, and personal health issues are incredibly complex and should be left in the hands of experts, but the Supreme Court’s decision means those experts’ hands are tied.
Working to protect public health, we have supported regulations that raise air quality standards and limit toxic substances like PFAS. Environmental regulations provide a bulwark, preventing the potential unregulated greed of an industry whose corporate goal is profit, not public health (not even the public health of its shareholders). Government hostility to regulation comes at the expense of the lives of those it opposes. Overturning rules that protect us all harms the country as a whole. With the caveat that if insurance companies want to cover the cost of our health care, they can fight it in court, which is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Many medical groups came together to draft an amicus brief, which Justice Elena Kagan cited in her dissent, highlighting the “judicial arrogance” the Court displayed in its excessive power play. The longstanding Chevron deference rule has allowed agencies to protect and advance public health and ensured that health law is properly interpreted and implemented. With the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seeking to overturn the executive branch’s power to act, legislation appears to be one of the few options for protecting public health from climate and environmental degradation.
For example, one legal theory that has been raised many times is a carbon price that would work regardless of a biased judiciary and steer the economy toward clean energy options and a healthier planet. Such federal legislation would acknowledge the health hazards of climate change and fossil fuel pollution and be an effective tool to reduce climate pollution. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts even noted that Congress’ authority to set limits on carbon dioxide emissions is a “sensible solution,” but the Chevron decision limits the EPA’s ability to engage in a cap-and-trade system. Federal legislation that imposes steadily increasing carbon fees at the source (where coal, oil, and gas are extracted from the ground or where they enter the country) rather than cap-and-trade could circumvent these restrictions while also fostering a predictable transition to healthy non-carbon forms of energy across the country.
What the Supreme Court has done is the exact opposite of democracy – imposing the prejudices of a minority on the welfare and happiness of the majority. With the judiciary in the pockets of big corporations and fossil fuels, it is even more important that we uphold laws that cannot be easily overturned. Putting a price on carbon pollution is an example of common-sense, economically feasible legislation that could expand the environmental protections our communities deserve.
Although I waved the flag along with everyone else in the 4th of July parade, that doesn’t mean I’m satisfied with the status quo of our government. I want our leaders to do better to support us and our health.
Elizabeth Celus, MD, is an associate professor in the School of Medicine, a University Hospital Physician, and Director of Climate Health. She also serves as co-chair of the Education and Climate-Smart Medicine committees for the Medical Societies Consortium on Climate and Health. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of her employer.
