Supreme Court Should Strike Down EPA's Unconstitutional Market Allocation Scheme

Source: Margot Cleveland. "SCOTUS Could Strike Down EPA's Unconstitutional Overreach." June 9, 2026. thefederalist.com

The Gist

The author argues that the EPA overstepped its constitutional authority by creating its own rules for who gets to participate in the hydrofluorocarbon industry, since Congress didn't give specific guidance. The Supreme Court should use this case to stop federal agencies from making laws instead of just enforcing them.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court should hear the Choice Refrigerants case and strike down the EPA's hydrofluorocarbon allocation scheme as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power

Premises

  1. Congress passed the AIM Act mandating hydrofluorocarbon reduction but provided no guidance on who should receive allowances
  2. The EPA created its own standards for allocating market share, including considerations of 'equity' and preferences for minority-owned businesses
  3. The Constitution's Article I, Section 1 vests all legislative powers in Congress, not unelected bureaucrats
  4. The AIM Act contains no 'intelligible principle' to guide EPA's allocation decisions, violating the nondelegation doctrine
  5. Multiple Supreme Court justices have indicated willingness to strengthen the nondelegation doctrine and return to constitutional original meaning
  6. The EPA's scheme allows federal agencies to pick winners and losers in multibillion-dollar industries based purely on policy preferences
  7. The current 'intelligible principle' standard for delegation is flawed and non-textual, enabling continued agency lawmaking

Assumptions

View this argument on LogicFirst.ai