评论
打印
The question in the case, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, turned on the scope of the language of the Clean Air Act.
首席大法官罗伯茨写道，该案取决于《清洁空气法案》的措辞范围。
Under it, he wrote, Congress had not clearly given the agency sweeping authority to regulate the energy industry.
他写道，根据该法案，国会没有明确授予该机构监管能源行业的广泛权力。
"Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,'" he wrote, quoting an earlier decision.
他援引早些时候的一项裁决写道："将二氧化碳排放量限制在一定水平，迫使（发电厂）在全国范围内放弃使用煤炭发电，这可能是一种明智的‘解决当今危机的方案'。"
But, he added, "a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body."
但是，他补充说，"如此重大和重要的决策应该由国会做出，或是由依据国会的明确授权而采取行动的机构做出。"
In dissent, Justice Kagan wrote that the court had substituted its own policy judgment for that of Congress.
大法官卡根对此表示异议，她写道，最高法院用自己的政策判断取代了国会的政策判断。
"Whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change," she wrote.
她写道："无论最高法院对其他事情有多少了解，该机构对如何应对气候变化都是一无所知。"
"And let's say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants' carbon dioxide emissions."
"让我们说一个显而易见的事实: 现在风险很高。 然而，今天最高法院阻止了国会授权的机构采取行动来限制发电厂二氧化碳的排放量。"
"The court appoints itself -- instead of Congress or the expert agency -- the decision maker on climate policy," she wrote. "I cannot think of many things more frightening."
"最高法院将自己，而非国会或专门机构，任命为气候政策的决策者。"她写道，"我想不出还有什么能比这更可怕。"
The ruling curtailed but did not eliminate the agency's ability to regulate the energy sector, and the agency may still use measures like emission controls at individual power plants. But the court ruled out more ambitious approaches, like a cap-and-trade system.
这项裁决对环保局监管能源行业的职能进行了限制，但没有废除，该机构可能仍会对个别发电厂使用控制排放等措施。但法院否决了更有野心的做法，比如总量管制与交易体系。
It has also expressed skepticism toward the reach of other regulatory agencies, evident in recent decisions arising from the coronavirus pandemic.
法院对其他监管机构的权力范围也表示质疑，这从最近新冠病毒疫情引发的裁决中可见一斑。
The court has ruled, for instance, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was not authorized to impose a moratorium on evictions and that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was powerless to tell large employers to have their workers vaccinated or undergo frequent testing.
例如，最高法院裁定，疾病控制和预防中心无权暂缓驱逐命令，职业安全与健康管理局无权要求大型雇主为其员工接种疫苗或进行频繁的检测。
The question before the justices in the new case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 20-1530, was whether the Clean Air Act allowed the E.P.A. to issue sweeping regulations across the power sector.
在这起编号为20-1530的西弗吉尼亚州诉环境保护局的新案件中，摆在法官面前的问题是，《清洁空气法案》是否允许环保局在电力行业发布全面的法规。
