The Supreme Court’s EPA Decision and Asbestos: What’s the Connection?

The recent SCOTUS decision on EPA Oversight could affect asbestos regulation.

One of the most turbulent Supreme Court terms in recent years ended with a decision that could be more impactful than the other headline-grabbing opinions the Supremes recently issued.

What was the Supreme Court case of W. Virginia v. EPA all about?

On its face, 2022’s West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency was about the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, greenhouse gasses, climate change, and alternative energy sources. Many protest songs will be written about these issues. We’re thinking about writing one ourselves. What word rhymes with “agency”?

Fundamentally, however, this case is about the power of a federal agency to issue regulations without express Congressional approval. Such separation of powers questions have beleaguered the courts since the days of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) and Gibbons vs. Ogden (1824). Marbury established the principle of judicial review and Gibbons significantly expanded the interstate commerce clause. These decisions seemed trivial at the time, but they had earth-shattering consequences.

How is the SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v. EPA related to asbestos regulation?

Now, here’s the asbestos connection. Asbestos fibers, just like fossil fuel emissions, are airborne contaminants. If the EPA cannot enact aggressive rules that reduce fossil fuel emissions, it also cannot pass aggressive anti-asbestos rules.

SCOTUS’ decision in W. Virginia v. EPA relied on the “Major Questions Doctrine.”

What is the Major Questions Doctrine?

In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts used the nebulous major questions doctrine, which the Supremes first invoked in 1994, to strike down the 2015 CPP and uphold the newer version. “In certain extraordinary cases, both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent make us ‘reluctant to read into ambiguous statutory text’ the delegation claimed to be lurking there,” he wrote. “To convince us otherwise, something more than a merely plausible textual basis for the agency action is necessary. The agency instead must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power it claims,” he added.

The Major Questions Doctrine in simple terms

Basically, a court uses the major questions doctrine to reign in agencies which, in that court’s opinion, are coloring outside the lines. Chief Justice Roberts essentially said that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act when it passed the aforementioned “outside the fence” CPP rules. Only “inside the fence” restrictions are possible under current law, according to the Chief Justice. If the President, through the EPA, wants to do more, that’s fine, as long as the agency has Congressional approval.

Writing in dissent, Justice Elena Kagan attacked the court’s “frightening” and “troubling” decision because “it does not have a clue about how to address climate change.”

W. Virginia v. EPA and the Chevron Deference Rule

This decision may have also affected the so-called Chevron deference rule. Under this doctrine, which comes from 1984’s Chevron U.S.A., Inc. vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., courts defer to executive agencies in their interpretation of Congressional environmental laws if, according to Justice John Paul Stevens, “the statute is silent or ambiguous” and the agency’s rule “is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”

Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion certainly dilutes this rule. The Obama EPA probably thought it was using vague statutory language (pretty much all statutory language is vague) to carry out the intent of Congress. However, the majority opinion didn’t specifically address Chevron, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

Legal Options for Victims

During the 1980s anti-asbestos push, many asbestos producers and users closed their doors. So, these claims are complex. However, these victims still have legal options. 

If the asbestos producer is still operating, a defective product claim is usually the best alternative. Manufacturers are strictly liable for the injuries their defective products cause. Additionally, by the 1980s, asbestos’ health hazards were widely known, yet these companies kept selling this dangerous substance.

Legal standard for lawsuits involving asbestos exposure

Builders and other asbestos users were well aware of the risks as well. However, a different legal standard applies in these cases. Compensation is available if a victim/plaintiff proves the builder, building owner, or other responsible party was negligent. Basically, negligence is a lack of care. Furthermore, in most cases, an asbestos lawyer must also prove the defendant knew, or should have known, the structure contained asbestos.

An asbestos trust fund action could be available as well. Federal judges forced companies to fund multi-billion-dollar victim compensation funds as a condition of their bankruptcies. Legally, a VCF claim is a hybrid of defective product and negligence claims. Usually, the applicant must establish the source of the asbestos.

That’s why AsbestosClaims.Law has developed W.A.R.D. (Worldwide Asbestos Research Database), the largest and most comprehensive database of asbestos-related information in the world. Using W.A.R.D., the team at AsbestosClaims.Law can find the documents and information needed to show that a person was exposed to asbestos, even many decades ago. 

There are also asbestos trusts – financial accounts that were set up to compensate people harmed by asbestos exposure – and W.A.R.D. can also help determine which trusts owe money to a particular client.

The anti-asbestos push might be over, but the health hazards remain. The aforementioned illnesses, and others like them, usually have at least a fifty-year latency period. Therefore, people who were exposed in the 1980s, 1970s, 1960s, or even 1950s might just now show some signs of illness.