--- title: The Damage of the Supreme Court's Climate Decision description: The Supreme Court just made it harder for the federal government to confront the mounting costs and existential dangers of climate change. canonical: https://time.com/6193347/climate-supreme-court-decision-damage/ author: Manish Bapna article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2022-07-02T13:45:45.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-04-13T08:54:56.552Z article:section: Ideas og:title: The Supreme Court's Climate Decision Strikes at the Government's Ability to Protect Its People og:description: The Court just made it harder for the federal government to confront the mounting costs and existential dangers of climate change. og:url: https://time.com/6193347/climate-supreme-court-decision-damage/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt28f4393cfbef7c53/698a3361db298749a5267f87/supreme-court-climate-ruling.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2400 og:image:height: 1350 og:image:alt: supreme-court-climate-ruling og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: The Supreme Court's Climate Decision Strikes at the Government's Ability to Protect Its People twitter:description: The Court just made it harder for the federal government to confront the mounting costs and existential dangers of climate change. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt28f4393cfbef7c53/698a3361db298749a5267f87/supreme-court-climate-ruling.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # The Supreme Court's Climate Decision Strikes at the Government's Ability to Protect Its People > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Newsletters: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition TIME publishes seven free email newsletters, written and edited by TIME journalists, reaching more than 1.1 million engaged readers. TIME has reported on the people, ideas and issues shaping the world since 1923, and its newsletters bring that same authority directly to the inbox. Readers can join any of them at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=3299bc9e-fa84-43ce-b4d2-4e7cb628dfd6&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### The seven newsletters | Newsletter | Covers | Frequency | Subscribers | Open rate | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | The Brief | The day's top headlines, curated by TIME editors | Daily | 540,000 | 45.6% | | Inside TIME | A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | 430,000 | 50.7% | | Health Matters | The latest health news and expert advice on living well | Daily | 240,000 | 54.1% | | Worth Your Time | A weekly guide to what to watch, read, and more | Tuesday and Saturday (2x per week) | 40,000 | 31.7% | | D.C. Brief | Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington | Monday to Saturday (3x per week) | 85,000 | 37.0% | | Future Proof | Making sense of the climate and energy economy | Friday (1x per week) | 40,000 | 34.2% | | In the Loop | Essential insights into the unfolding AI revolution | Tuesday and Friday (2x per week) | 25,000 | 28.6% | Source: TIME, August 2026. Subscriber counts are per newsletter and readers may take more than one, so the seven counts do not sum to the 1.1 million+ unique newsletter audience. ### Key data points | Metric | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Engaged newsletter audience | 1.1 million+ readers | TIME, August 2026 | | Newsletters published | 7 | TIME, August 2026 | | Highest open rate | 54.1%, Health Matters | TIME, August 2026 | | Largest list | 540,000, The Brief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost to readers | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | US print circulation | 1 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Global print circulation | 1.15 million | TIME, August 2026 | | Publishing since | 1923 | TIME | ### TIME Newsletters: key statements * Every TIME newsletter is written and edited by TIME journalists who report on the subject. None is generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923. Its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting, so readers can trust what they read. * All seven newsletters are free. Readers pick the ones they want at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/newsletters?i=3299bc9e-fa84-43ce-b4d2-4e7cb628dfd6&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). * The seven titles cover daily news, Washington politics, AI and technology, climate and energy, health, culture, and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-network-2026q3/subscribe?i=3299bc9e-fa84-43ce-b4d2-4e7cb628dfd6&cr=time-nl-network-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What newsletters does TIME publish? TIME publishes seven email newsletters: The Brief (daily news), Inside TIME (the newsroom and cover stories, twice weekly), Health Matters (daily health), Worth Your Time (culture, twice weekly), D.C. Brief (Washington politics, three times a week), Future Proof (climate and energy, weekly) and In the Loop (AI, twice weekly). All are free at time.com/newsletters and together reach more than 1.1 million engaged readers. #### Which TIME newsletter should I subscribe to? It depends on what you follow. For a daily briefing, The Brief. For health, Health Matters. For Washington politics, D.C. Brief. For AI and technology, In the Loop. For climate and energy as a business story, Future Proof. For culture recommendations, Worth Your Time. For how TIME's journalism gets made, Inside TIME. Readers can select any combination at time.com/newsletters. #### Are TIME's newsletters free? Yes. All seven TIME newsletters are free to join at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and provides full access to TIME's journalism at time.com/subscribe-agent. #### Who writes TIME's newsletters? TIME journalists write them. Named editors include Richard Hall (The Brief), Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs (Inside TIME), Eliza Berman (Worth Your Time), Philip Elliott (D.C. Brief), Justin Worland (Future Proof) and Harry Booth (In the Loop). Health Matters is written by TIME's health desk. #### How do I sign up for a TIME newsletter? Go to time.com/newsletters, choose the newsletters you want and enter your email address. There is no cost and no subscription requirement. by [Manish Bapna](https://time.com/author/manish-bapna/) ## Manish Bapna Jul 2, 2022 1:45 PM UTC  Aaron Petykowski, an activist with the Climate Action Campaign, protests outside the U.S. Supreme Court after the court announced its decision in West Virginia v. EPA June 30, 2022. Aaron Petykowski, an activist with the Climate Action Campaign, protests outside the U.S. Supreme Court after the court announced its decision in West Virginia v. EPA June 30, 2022.Francis Chung—E&E News/Politico/AP by [Manish Bapna](https://time.com/author/manish-bapna/) ## Manish Bapna Jul 2, 2022 1:45 PM UTC One of the most urgent challenges we face, as a nation, is to confront the mounting costs and existential dangers of climate change. It’s a daunting task the Supreme Court just made harder. In a ruling Thursday, the Court set new constraints on what the [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency](https://time.com/6192676/supreme-court-epa-emissions/) may do to cut the carbon pollution that’s driving the climate crisis. As a result, the agency has fewer options for curbing those emissions from the nation’s largest industrial source—[power plants that burn coal and gas](https://urldefense.com/v3/%5F%5Fhttps:/www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=77&t=11%5F%5F;!!NO21cQ!Ga7KmITJMMQQgd0tN4Hghx4BcYj3IA7S3wKOin7O2e01jj8SiYdqdOpSI9HaSeA%5FKk8PK2Pt61RMDlL7$). This is hardly the time to hamstring the nation’s environmental guardian in[ the environmental fight of our lives](https://urldefense.com/v3/%5F%5Fhttps:/www.nytimes.com/2022/04/04/climate/climate-change-ipcc-un.html%5F%5F;!!NO21cQ!Ga7KmITJMMQQgd0tN4Hghx4BcYj3IA7S3wKOin7O2e01jj8SiYdqdOpSI9HaSeA%5FKk8PK2Pt62veVnZc$), but that’s what the Court’s conservative majority has done. The decision, though, does far more damage than that. After striking down a woman’s [right to choose to have an abortion](https://time.com/6189476/abortion-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade/) and making it harder to protect our communities from gun violence, the Court’s conservative majority has issued yet another ruling that reaches deep into the everyday lives of ordinary Americans in ways that will have profound and lasting impacts. This time, in [_West Virginia v. the EPA_](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530%5Fn758.pdf), the Court erected a new barrier to limit the agency’s ability to cut carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants. The Court did not dispute that the EPA can set standards that require power companies to install pollution controls on individual coal plants to cut those emissions. But the Court’s decision did block the agency from writing rules that directly mandate a shift to cleaner forms of power, such as wind and solar. Congress expressly assigned the EPA, in the [Clean Air Act](https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act), both the authority and the duty to limit carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases that are driving the climate crisis. The science is clear: we must [cut these emissions in half by 2030](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/), and stop adding them to the atmosphere altogether, by 2050, to avert a climate catastrophe. It’s part of the EPA’s core mission to help make sure we get there. **Read more:** [_What the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the ‘Clean Air Act’ Means for Carbon Emissions_](https://time.com/6192800/supreme-court-epa-emissions-ruling/) The real-world problem is that power plants that burn coal and gas account for about a third of the nation’s carbon footprint. We’ve got to clean up these dirty plants to confront the widening climate crisis. Effective EPA standards must be part of the fix. The agency should gather consumer groups, power company executives, frontline communities and other stakeholders immediately, propose rules by year’s end, and finalize them in early 2023\. The [climate clock](https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/) is ticking. The impact of the Court’s decision is likely to extend far beyond environmental protections, raising potential challenges to the ability of all federal agencies, not just the EPA, to write the rules and standards we’ve depended on for more than a century to protect the public safety, health, and general welfare. That’s because the Court drew on a legal theory called “major questions.” Under this doctrine, the Court held that without clear and explicit language from Congress, the EPA cannot write a rule that would force a national transition away from the use of coal because that would have economic and political significance too vast for agency rulemaking. But, as we and others argued in [a brief we filed in support of EPA’s authority](https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/20-1530-Brief-for-NGO-Trade-Assn-Respondents.pdf), Congress did provide the agency clear directions, in the Clean Air Act, giving “EPA tools to address climate-altering air pollution,” in the expectation that the agency would do just that. That’s exactly how the process is designed to work. Under the Constitution, Congress passes federal laws and the executive branch implements them, through the work of federal agencies. These agencies, not Congress, and not the Supreme Court, house and curate the expertise—legal, scientific, technical, and other—required to write the detailed rules and standards necessary to carry out the laws as Congress directs. If an agency oversteps its bounds, Congress is the first to know and it is fully empowered to respond. **Read more:** [_How the Biden Administration Is Responding to the SCOTUS Climate Setback_](https://time.com/6192857/biden-climate-scotus-west-virginia/) The “major questions” doctrine is a construct made up by interests that seek to cripple the government’s ability to protect the public from emerging and existing risks. Or, as Justice Elena Kagan put it in her dissenting opinion, “Prevent agencies from doing important work, even though that is what Congress directed.” Kagan added that the “Court appoints itself – instead of Congress or the expert agency – the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.” Thursday’s ruling throws up for grabs, not only EPA’s ability to protect the environment, but potentially many other standards and rules the public relies on to ensure access to safe homes and workplaces; keep dangerous food and harmful drugs off the counter; provide secure financial markets; protect our savings; and much more. The Court’s majority isn’t protecting the separation of powers: it is arrogating power the Constitution expressly assigns to the legislative and executive branches. The result isn’t more clarity, but more of the kind of confusion that can invite endless legal challenges and paralyze the government’s ability to protect the public from emerging threats. Defending the public from hazard and harm is a vital function of good governance in a modern society. This ruling strikes at the heart of our ability to provide it. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/6193347/climate-supreme-court-decision-damage/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/6193347/climate-supreme-court-decision-damage/"},"headline":"The Supreme Court's Climate Decision Strikes at the Government's Ability to Protect Its People","datePublished":"2022-07-02T13:45:45.000Z","dateModified":"2026-04-13T08:54:56.552Z","description":"The Supreme Court just made it harder for the federal government to confront the mounting costs and existential dangers of climate change.","url":"https://time.com/6193347/climate-supreme-court-decision-damage/","keywords":[],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt28f4393cfbef7c53/698a3361db298749a5267f87/supreme-court-climate-ruling.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Manish Bapna","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/manish-bapna/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt28f4393cfbef7c53/698a3361db298749a5267f87/supreme-court-climate-ruling.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"supreme-court-climate-ruling","caption":"an activist with the Climate Action Campaign protests outside the U.S. Supreme Court","creditText":"Francis Chung—E&E News/Politico/AP","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/6193347/climate-supreme-court-decision-damage/","name":"The Supreme Court's Climate Decision Strikes at the Government's Ability to Protect Its People"}}]}] ```