来源：《华盛顿邮报》
原文刊登日期：2022年6月30日
The Supreme Court ended its term Thursday with another controversial ruling — not because the court had to but because the conservative majority wanted to. The result in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency is that the EPA is now far more limited in its ability to fight climate change. It also means other federal agencies are on notice that the court might tell them, too, that they suddenly lack the authority to respond to major problems in the areas Congress has tasked them to oversee.
最高法院星期四以另一项有争议的裁决结束了2021-2022审理期，不是因为最高法院必须这样做，而是因为保守派多数希望这样做。西维吉尼亚州诉环境保护局案的结果是，环保局现在在应对气候变化方面的能力受到了极大的限制。这也意味着其他联邦机构也会注意到，最高法院可能也会告诉它们，在国会授权它们监督的领域，它们突然缺乏应对重大问题的权限。
The case revolves around Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which authorizes the EPA to impose limits on pollution sources based on the “best system of emissions reduction.” During the Obama administration, the agency determined the best system to cut emissions from power plants involved shifting away from highly polluting coal-fired electricity to cleaner natural gas and renewables. It was not widely disputed.
该案围绕《清洁空气法》第111条展开，该条授权环保局根据“最佳减排体系”对污染源施加限制。在奥巴马政府时期，环保局认为，减少发电厂排放的最佳体系包括从高污染的燃煤电力转向更清洁的天然气和可再生能源。当时这并没有引起太大的争议。
But the court declared that the agency overstepped its authority when it wrote a rule that would encourage fuel-switching. Reshaping the electricity sector is a “major question” of policy, the court argued, and the EPA must show that Congress clearly delegated to the agency powers of such breadth.
但最高法院宣布，环保局在制定鼓励燃料转换的规定时超越了其权限。最高法院认为，重塑电力行业是一个“重大的政策问题”，环保局必须表明，国会明确授予其如此广泛的权力。
“But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the ‘best system of emission reduction’ for power plants,” Justice Elena Kagan countered in a dissent. “The ‘best system’ full stop — no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here.”
“但这正是国会所做的，它在第111条中广泛授权环保局为发电厂选择‘最佳减排体系’，”大法官埃琳娜·卡根持不同意见反驳道。“‘最佳体系’到此为止——没有任何与此相关的“如果”、“并且”或“但是”。”
Congress regularly gives agencies flexibility to respond to novel problems. The Clean Air Act gave the EPA broad powers to regulate pollutants, because the agency can leverage scientific expertise to address significant environmental threats with a speed and exactitude that Congress cannot.
国会经常给予各政府机构应对新问题的灵活性。《清洁空气法》赋予了环境保护局监管污染物的广泛权力，因为环保局可以利用科学专业知识，以国会无法做到的速度和准确性解决重大的环境威胁。
The court did not forbid the EPA from writing a new greenhouse gas rule — just under substantial limits that seem likely to make any resulting regulation ineffective. The decision also raises broader questions about when and how all federal agencies, not just the EPA, can act in the public interest. Some observers said they worried the court would use this case to aggressively rein in the administrative state. The court did not go as far as they had feared, but judges could still use the new precedent to overturn all sorts of rules they dislike.
最高法院并没有禁止环境保护局制定新的温室气体法规——只是在大量的限制之下，可能使任何由此产生的法规无效。这一判决也引发了更广泛的问题，即所有联邦机构，不仅仅是EPA，何时以及如何为公众利益行事。一些观察人士表示，他们担心最高法院会利用这起案件来积极控制行政部门。最高法院并没有达到他们所担心的程度，但下级法院的法官仍然可以利用这个新的先例来推翻他们不喜欢的各种法规。
Sadly, “it could have been worse” might be about the best Americans can begin to expect from this court, which took a hard right turn this session. As in other recent cases, the majority had options to avoid issuing a decision of such reach. But the court’s conservative wing grabbed at the chance to issue a ringing decision. The consequences of the conservative majority’s emboldened disposition — on the environment, privacy rights, gun violence, the separation of church and state, and countless other momentous issues — are only beginning to be seen.
可悲的是，“这不是最坏的结果”可能是美国人民对当今最高法院的最好期望，最高法院在这个审理期出现了严重的右转。同最近的其他案件一样，最高法院多数派可以选择避免作出这种影响广泛的决定。但最高法院的保守派抓住了这个机会，做出了一个强有力的决定。在环境、隐私权、枪支暴力、政教分离以及无数其他重大问题上，保守多数派的大胆倾向所带来的后果才刚刚开始显现。