IER files Amicus Curiae Brief in Ohio v. EPA
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to rescind the SAFE I rule and reinstate California’s waiver for greenhouse gas and zero-emission vehicle standards unfairly privileges California over other states. This preferential treatment violates the Constitution’s federalism principles, which mandate equal treatment of states unless a strong, present justification exists. The special powers granted to California under the Clean Air Act are a clear violation of these equal sovereignty principles. This brief from the Institute for Energy Research (IER), and its coalition partners, supports the state and industry petitioners challenging the legality of this special California waiver, urging the Supreme Court to invalidate the waiver. The brief cites the Court’s historical commitment to state equality, emphasizing that this case presents an opportunity to reaffirm those principles.
The Argument
The brief argues that the federal government must treat all states equally under the Constitution, a principle grounded in federalism and historical jurisprudence. The argument criticizes the EPA for favoring California over other states without valid justification, asserting that this unequal treatment violates the Constitution’s requirement for equal state sovereignty. The discussion draws on past Supreme Court decisions, including Shelby County v. Holder, which upheld the principle of state equality, and emphasizes that differential treatment of states is only permissible with strong, current justification. The summary also highlights the historical and constitutional importance of maintaining equal sovereignty among states to prevent factionalism and preserve federalism.
The principle of equality among states is deeply rooted in American history and constitutional law. Before the Constitution was adopted, Alexander Hamilton assured that states would retain all rights of sovereignty not exclusively delegated to the federal government, emphasizing that any powers not given to the federal government remained with the states. This notion of concurrent jurisdiction and state sovereignty was fundamental to the Constitution, which allocated powers not specifically granted to the federal government, to the states.
Historically, this principle has been seen as essential for national unity and harmony. John Holmes, in 1824, and Joel Barlow, in the early Republic, both emphasized that equality among states is crucial for the stability and effectiveness of the Union. This equality was not only seen as a practical necessity but also rooted in natural law and international law, which the Founding Fathers and early American judges were influenced by. The Constitution, and the debates at the Constitutional Convention, reflected this principle. Despite disagreements on representation, there was a consensus on the equal sovereignty of states. This idea was supported by prominent figures like Gunning Bedford and Charles Pinckney, who argued that inequality in state sovereignty was contrary to natural law. The Constitution’s design, including the Senate’s equal representation of states and the House’s representation based on population, aimed to balance these principles. Although the House represents the people and thus varies in influence by state population, the equal treatment of states in their political capacity was preserved.
Overall, historical understanding, constitutional text, and Supreme Court precedents affirm that equality among states is a core principle of the Union, integral to its formation and ongoing function.
Some argue that the equality of states is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. However, this concern overlooks several key points. First, understanding the Constitution involves honoring the rights, privileges, guarantees, and public understandings that were inherent in its original meaning. This means the Court must demand a compelling justification from the federal government before approving the EPA waiver at issue.
Second, rigid literalism that ignores the Constitution’s structural principles contradicts established constitutional doctrine. For instance, in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019), the Court overturned a long-standing precedent despite arguments that only the Constitution’s structure supported the change. The Court upheld state sovereign immunity as a principle deeply embedded in the Constitution’s text and structure. The case here is even stronger because affirming the equality of states aligns with existing doctrine and does not require overturning previous decisions, unlike in Hyatt.
In Hyatt, the Court recognized that many constitutional doctrines, while not explicitly stated, are implicit in the Constitution’s structure and historical practice. Examples include judicial review, intergovernmental tax immunity, and executive privilege. Recently, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the Court relied on the Constitution’s structural principles to overrule Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), emphasizing the importance of an independent judiciary free from executive influence.
Similarly, the equality of states is a fundamental constitutional principle. The Court has consistently upheld structural principles even against longstanding practices that contradict them. As the Court has noted, the Constitution’s structure is crucial for preserving liberty and preventing arbitrary power. This respect for constitutional structure ensures that the government functions correctly and protects individual freedoms. Justice Scalia famously argued that the Constitution’s structure prevents the rise of a “banana republic,” while Justice Gorsuch emphasized that safeguarding this structure is essential for preserving the people’s liberty.
Conclusion
The federal government’s preferential treatment of California undermines the autonomy, dignity, and sovereignty of other states. This favoritism violates the constitutional duty for federal governance to be impartial. The EPA has not provided a credible justification for this special treatment, which appears to be based on bias rather than objective criteria. This irrational favoritism contravenes the principle of equal treatment among states. Furthermore, California’s special waiver reflects an unreasoned deviation from previous policies, which should be subject to rigorous scrutiny. Overall, the federal government’s actions fail to uphold the principle of “perfect equality” among states as required by the Constitution.
______________________
The full brief can be found here.
