What the EPA Supreme Court Ruling Means for Cannabis – Cannabis News, Lifestyle

On the surface, the EPA Supreme Court ruling means nothing for cannabis. On June 30, 2022, the United States Supreme Court returned its verdict in West Virginia v. EPA. This case is about how an administrative arm of the US government – the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – enforces its authority over greenhouse gas emissions.

Key takeaways include the Major Questions Doctrine, the Chevron Deference Doctrine, and the EPA’s power to enforce its rules. Of course, the Court is not a legislator. Control remains in the hands of Congress, just as it has been since the 18th century.

Most importantly, the Court’s decision indirectly empowers individual states. Limiting the scope of the EPA’s mandate hampers the federal government and encourages states to set their own greenhouse gas emissions standards.

What Does the EPA Supreme Court Ruling Mean for Cannabis? Especially in the states where cannabis is legal? That means federal agencies can’t use the EPA as a backdoor to crush the cannabis industry.

So far, federal authorities have been content to leave everything alone. But if the U.S. government ever legalizes cannabis federally and takes a German or Canadian approach—that is, centralizes power in the hands of a corporate elite—the EPA’s authority before this ruling could have ended any free-market experiment. All they needed was climate change as justification.

Cannabis farms are not carbon neutral

The fact is, cannabis farms cause pollution. The EPA Supreme Court ruling could mean that cannabis farms are not at the mercy of the administrative state. This decision was made by applying the “Big Questions” doctrine.

Chief Justice Roberts majority thought that in “certain exceptional cases” in which a government bureaucracy asserts sweeping powers of “economic and political importance,” the courts should look to a clear signal from Congress. The courts are not legislative bodies. You need congressional approval.

Congress will delegate its powers to agencies like the EPA to regulate trade and industry. However, if the rules are too broad or too general, the Supreme Court requires express statutory authority. This is what is meant by the doctrine of the “big questions.” Proponents say it’s a good way to limit the arbitrary authority of government bureaucracies. Critics say it’s a handicap for getting anywhere in government. Disadvantage of the USA compared to other nation states.

If the court had ruled otherwise, the EPA’s power to cut carbon emissions could have done the job. Suppose in the future, when the US legalizes, hundreds of thousands of cannabis farms will be shut down based on the EPA’s cannabis farm emissions regulations. The goal is to provide Americans with cannabis from four or five mega-farms. Bureaucrats find it easier to deal with a few large companies than with millions of small companies. Also, on the surface, it looks like the mega farms emit less than thousands of small cannabis farms.

But this ignores the unseen potential. It’s a static, bureaucratic way of looking at the world. No innovation in cannabis cultivation and no way to reduce emissions is assumed other than by forcing people at gunpoint.

Big Questions Doctrine & Chevron Deference Doctrine

This is the first time the Court has previously used the phrase “big questions” doctrine. But the principle has been applied before. In 2000, the court rejected the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) asserted authority to regulate tobacco products, including “delivery devices.”

More recently, the Supreme Court embodied the principle by preventing the CDC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from enforcing their Covid vaccination mandates.

The court did not strike down Chevron, which requires the courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous law passed by Congress. Many expected they would, but the majority opinion doesn’t even mention it.

However, this decision will affect how the US government handles the EPA’s regulatory powers. Some technical details relate to the specifics of the case, such as: B. Disagreements over ‘generational’ technologies such as partial carbon capture and storage or co-firing of natural gas.

However, the court’s decision notes that the EPA needs explicit legislative authority to withstand legal challenges. The Major Questions doctrine is a powerful tool that Americans can use against the bureaucratic administrative state. Congress still has the power to delegate these “important issues” to federal agencies. But they must do so in clear, descriptive language.

The Supreme Court ruling on the EPA means that if Congress is to crush a free market cannabis industry in the name of climate change, it must determine exactly how it will do so. No more hiding behind EPA bureaucracy.

What the EPA Supreme Court ruling means for cannabis

The Supreme Court ruling on the EPA could mean nothing for cannabis right now. But the decision will no doubt encourage some states to use their powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. And given the EPA’s newly shrunken powers, that could mean that states rather than the federal government set environmental policy.

Legal cannabis states can protect themselves from a Washington DC corporate takeover. It will also allow society to see how different environmental regulations might work in the cannabis industry. It makes no sense to put all your eggs in one basket. After all, pollution is a private property issue, and there is no reason individual states and local governments cannot address private property issues.

What’s the point of allowing a city of bureaucrats to dictate how 335 million people will live?

The Supreme Court ruling on the EPA means cannabis, among other industries, is safe from government intrusion. Undoubtedly, West Virginia vs. EPA will come into play whenever the FCC seeks to regulate the Internet or when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks to enforce environmental, social and governance requirements.

The “Big Questions” doctrine is a powerful tool. In the right hands, with the right cases, good lawyers and competent judges, we can dismantle the administrative state. The United States of America can return to a federal government bound by its constitutional borders.