The leftists and most media sources are deliberately misleading the public about recent Supreme Court decisions, casting them as political actions, and concentrating on the subject (such as abortion, or climate change) rather than reasons behind the decisions. The decisions reached by the Court this term are largely based on support of the Constitution as written, and supporting Federalism, which is the basis for the USA as originally created.
“Federalism” is the word used to describe the Constitution’s system of dividing political power between the national government and the states. This principle was the basis for the Court’s decision in DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL, the case which reversed Roe v Wade and Casey. The decisions on abortion law have been turned back to the states.
In NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL, the Court struck down the New York State’s requirement that a person seeking an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” must prove that “proper cause exists”. The requirement is inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. Furthermore, the exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.
Regarding today’s decision in WEST VIRGINIA ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL, the Court ruled that the proper role of a government agency (in this case, the EPA, an Executive branch agency) should not be making laws, which is the role of the legislative branch of government (Congress). They held that EPA’s stated intention is not to enforce the Clean Power Plan and to instead engage in new rulemaking. Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.
This is a major questions case. EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute designed as a gap filler. That discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself. Given these circumstances, there is every reason to “hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the authority it claims under Section 111(d).