Investor Presentaiton
26
staked a place at the very center of this Nation's public
discourse." Nat'l Rev., Inc. v. Mann, 140 S. Ct. 344, 348
(2019) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); see
also, e.g., Janus v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun.
Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2476 (2018) (referring
to the "controversial subject[]" of “climate change”).
"[E]arnest and profound debate" like this provides one
last signal that the question EPA seized is major.
Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 249.
All told, if the decision below does not involve a major
question, it is hard to imagine what would. An unbridled
reinterpretation of Section 111 allows an agency without
political accountability to impose measures that affect
millions of Americans and impose hundreds of billions in
costs. Worse still, EPA can only address environmental
matters. While this mission is vital, it renders EPA's
regulatory solutions necessarily incomplete—EPA
cannot, for instance, help States dull the economic pain its
rules exact. Without clear evidence that Congress
intended these results, the Court should not construe
Section 111 to permit them implicitly.
B. Congress Did Not Clearly Delegate to EPA
Power to Upend Traditional State and
Federal Roles.
Enlarging Section 111's reach violates a second "well-
established principle" of statutory construction—that
Congress must provide a "clear statement" if it wants to
alter the "usual constitutional balance of federal and state
powers." Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 858 (2014)
(citations omitted). This choice requires "exceedingly
clear language," U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River
Pres. Ass'n, 140 S. Ct. 1837, 1849-50 (2020); Congress
must make its intent "unmistakably clear in the languageView entire presentation