Supreme Court Ruling Paved the Way for Air Force to Poison AZ Drinking Water

After the EPA ordered the force to clean this polluted water, the Air Force claimed that they cannot and will not do this — and all thanks to the Supreme Court.

The Air Force has claimed that the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine, which previously allowed regulators to interpret ambiguous parts of the law.

This all stems from the Supreme Court’s overturning of a 40-year precedent that gave federal agencies like the EPA the power to regulate certain areas of the law.

The case ruling basically instructs the judiciary to defer to government offices when it came to interpreting legislation and determining how best to enforce laws passed by Congress.

There are many political commentators who are extremely troubled by the implications of SCOTUS overturning Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council and the motivations that may be behind such a decision.

The decision basically reversed a directive that meant the courts essentially had to defer to the president on matters of enforcing laws. With this step, the foundations may have been laid for a fundamental change in the role of SCOTUS.

Making the move to reverse the Chevron ruling and the precedent it set would appear to be at odds with the intended function of SCOTUS, as laid out in the Constitution.

According to her, they’ve bestowed themselves “nearly unlimited power over the administrative state and its regulatory agencies.” This would indeed appear to be at direct odds with the constitution.

In her words: “The U.S. Constitution, flawed though it is, has already answered the question of who gets to decide how to enforce our laws.” She continues: “The Constitution says, quite clearly, that Congress passes laws and the president enforces them. The Supreme Court, constitutionally speaking, has no role.”

At the very least, its undermined previous interpretations of how laws are enforced, as seen by the Air Force citing the overturn of Chevron in this particular clash with the EPA.

With another controversial ruling, SCOTUS would appear to have also expanded their power to the point where they are the decision makers as to whether legal action can be brought against a former president.

In a 6-3 majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for any actions that relate to the core powers of their office.

Where the decision by SCOTUS is drawing a lot of criticism is regarding what exactly constitutes and “official” act — or rather, who gets to decide this.

They also stressed it was for the lower courts to decide what constitutes an “official” act. In practice, though, you have to think these courts would take a steer from the Supreme Court in such a decision, should SCOTUS get involved. This means SCOTUS has essentially granted itself the power to decide whether or not to prosecute a former president.

But the impact of the decision does not exist purely in the realm of debate and constitutional theory. It has a very practical impact that is being seen almost immediately by the Air Force’s outright refusal to adhere to the EPA’s directive.

According to various reports, several bases in Tucson have contributed to polluting drinking water in the region, contaminating much of it with incredibly harmful toxins such as PFAS, which are often called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down.

If these chemicals successfully get the chance to enter a person’s body and accumulate, then this person can face incredibly severe health issues.

Most legal experts agree that there’s no way the Air Force will be able to use the Supreme Court’s Chevron overturning in this case. This is because the new precedent only impacts rule-making, not enforcing laws or regulations.

One part of a government cannot sue another part. Therefore, the Air Force eventually will have to abide by these EPA orders, though other parts of the government may have to step in to ensure it happens.

She said, “It feels almost like an intimidation tactic, but it will be interesting to see if others take this approach and it bleeds over.”

After all, while the Air Force cannot sue the EPA, a business can.

In their statement going against the EPA, the force simply said that the Supreme Court led to the fact that “the EPA’s order can not withstand review.” Therefore, they wouldn’t have to clean up the water.

The EPA stated that it would cost the Air Force $25 million to clean up the pollution in Arizona — only 0.1% of the Air Force’s budget.

Many were very worried that attacks against agencies like the EPA would become common, as the court basically stripped regulators of many rights to do their job. Now, this specific case has seemingly become the first instance of these concerns coming to fruition.