network and c-span radio. c-span now is available on the apple store and google play. c-span now, your front world seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> with roe v. wade under a desk overturned, c-span is looking back at the most consequential and high-profile rulings of the supreme court. the case that led to the court limiting the epa's authority to limiting greenhouse emissions. wash tonight at 8 p.m. -- watch tonight at 8 p.m. eastern as c-span, c-span now and c-span.org. >> -- here to talk about the recent decisions. can you describe --

you specifically look at regulation. what is your interest looking at regulation and what do you look for as far as your work? >> whether or not they are doing that and how they are following the administrative process. >> members of the government -- the recent supreme court decision on the epf, there are two levels. talk about that decision but what does this mean for the regulatory policy? guest: a did not say that they

could not potentially regulate greenhouse gases and all -- that applies to other agencies and there were signals from congress from -- unless there was statutory authority, -- as long as it does not violate any major rules and be fine with that decision -- guest: on the hill, agencies are trying to figure how to solve masses -- massive problems of climate change because they are

not getting new authorities so you end up with an administration where they are trying to jerry rig situation. guest: the congress -- host: the congress to give them a clear guidance. guest: congress can't say we want you to create a trade system and we want you to give you the authority. another thing they can do, anyway cabin trade system and pricing on carbon. there are solutions out there to address congress change. host: i cannot think of many

things more frightening. what do you think of that? guest: sort of the point that the majority in the case made is that these decisions that come down from agencies, they need to point to a specific provision. back in 2009, congress considered a bill and they did not enact it that was a single to the majority that congress has to consider these and they did not give the authority for that. host: what does this decision

mean for every regulatory agency in washington? guest: the seven plea on these rules that have massive full-court applications. the vast majority of those will be affected by this but in instances of climate change, we may see further respect from the court. one thing that comes immediately is -- to put in environmental climate change risk. that income be considered a major question which is what this case gets at because there is nothing in the statute that should be authorizing climate change. host: if you have questions, you can call (202) 748-8000 four

democrats. for republicans (202) 748-8000. for independents (202) 748-8002. there are other aspects for agencies that make regulation directly impacted by this decision? guest: we see the ftc get involved with competition issues related to tech. the fcc, there is talk to bring the -- those could be right for the guests supreme court to look back at. host: with the net neutrality thing -- guest: -- they want to classify it as utility. there is speculation amongst

legal folks that that is not what congress intended to be you title ii utilities so that is something the supreme court will look at and say we are not sure whether this is so it is worth looking at the case. the ftc has had a lot dormant regulatory authority that was closely. back in the 1970's. they have not used their rulemaking authority for competition issues but they may try to do that under the current regime so that kind of thing could be considered. host: unless they get the green light, the agencies couldn't do anything or act in this way. guest: they can try.

host: --guest: this gets at something from the decision. that is when there are -- when there is no authority for something that agency is doing that has major implications, and be on major implications -- beyond major implication. , they went to see statutory authority so agencies don't run them up or go too far from what the law wants them to do. host: guest: -- it will be on a case-by-case basis. that is a great area that agencies will be with and one of the affects is that agencies are less willing to push the envelope on what they can do.

that will be something to watch. host: there used to be something called chevron deference. can you speak on that? guest: chevron deference has to do when that law is vague, -- there was speculation that it may go away. the supreme court may get rid of it but they opted not to add a number of cases involving agents test and didn't mention chevron so it seems like it is ignoring it. a major question. host: if you are interested on how this might impact that. call us on the line. (202) 748-8000 democrats.

(202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 independence. you can view the covers on c-span and c-span now and c-span.org. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: really, the supreme court is not a legitimate court because the last teams live about roe v. wade and that they were not doing. guest: you are entitled to your opinion and i am not a expert on the process in which they became supreme court justices.

strictly speaking from one of the most recent movie -- it doesn't matter so people have to adjust to that. host: one of the opinion that came after that, they wrote this. he started off by saying -- that is a reflection of nearly 90 years of conservative animus towards the federal bureaucracy that expanded after the best the great depression. one person bureaucrat and another person's expert and goes on to say everyone likes to embrace terms that confirms biases and that becomes more problematic -- what do you think about that

perspective? guest: i do think that this is a unique circumstance for the application of the major questions doctrine. this was clearly with massive implications because it would lead to the closing of coal and fire and natural gas plants. he provision of the clean act authority that even when it is used before, it is used differently and more on a plant by plant basis. that was a departure from what they have traditionally done. congress has the chance to enact a calving trace system and they didn't. that signal that the congress would not want them to exercise that authority. host: what was the general approach to matter of regulation? rep. lofgren: -- guest: they

would prefer to agencies where things are vague but they like to point to systemic things. what has changed is that there are more members of the court that are more skeptical of agency authority. host: what was that decision us far as who decided. the three justices were some of my more -- sotomayor, kagan and breyer? guest: yes. host: did everyone fall in line with the decision that was written or were there exceptions? guest: their work and lockstep -- they were in lockstep. when justice seemed animated to use it more than the rest of the majority was willing to use it with the exception of justice alito but there is certainly an appetite for exploring agency

actions. host: this is still in texas. -- joel in texas. caller: i am a lower viewer since 1979 and i appreciate c-span. we get this comment referring -- refrained that the last three nominees of the supreme court indicated that they would not return roe v. wade. they did not say that. when justice said to pretend what willing she would make was beyond the pale. they said they had a regard for stories -- to a person, said, i will not tell you how i am going to vote on any different case. unless the other people would keep that in mind. they did not say it at all and

obviously -- guest: the most part, supreme -- i think it is important to recognize that roe v. wade is an unconstitutional issue as opposed to a administrative law issue. i am not knowledgeable on that. i can not speak to that. host: what is regulation and how does the government go about that? guest: regulation is when agencies implement what congress is authorized to do. if congress says epa, you need to do x, and that gives epa the authority to figure out the specifics. host: what is the process after? are they automatically approved earthing they go through a process? guest: the agency will go

through a proposal -- anyone one tango on the internet and make a comment and that agency takes it under consideration and after several months or years of review, the agency will make a final decision and make changes. host: does happen -- how does religion impact the average person? guest: it is usually indirect. things like gas prices that may not necessarily be the result of a regulatory decision, that is something that will come from congress. there are costs associated with regulations that get passed along to consumers and regulation has benefits to society so it is a balance of the public -- will not realize it but they receive benefits and

there are constant votes on them. host: give us an example well regulatory confirmation comes in where the average person benefits. guest: d regulation has benefits to the employees. that does increase the cost of raising goods. host: let's hear from the independent line. caller: how are you. host: we are on with the guest. caller: in 1973, supreme court justice decided on abortion and we change it. what is the point of changing the supreme court? the judges made a decision according to constitution and we decided to change the constitution law. does it make sense? guest: and the society -- and

makes it difficult and that society a little more difficult -- there are amendments in the constitution but there are some remedies to when the supreme court changes their opinion. that is something we will continue to see. host: when it comes to more regulation, how much does it cost? guest: as far as a price tag and how much it cost for a regular person, it is -- i have seen the total burden costs north of $2 trillion. we track the cost of regulations as the agencies regulate them through bidens first-year. i think it was $206 billion worth of regulations were passed. it is not small potatoes. host: have you described biden

administration's approach to regular guests regulation? -- to regulation? guest: is it we don't think we will work with congress to we will push through executive authority as much as we can. host: let's go to auto --otto. caller: i think the supreme court ruling is dangerous. it is a threat to human life on this planet and plant animals. we need to think about improving our homes. this is the only place in the universe we know life exist. doing away with a texan for the environment is only going to lead to horrible things down the road. guest: you -- climate change is

one of the existential issues of our time. it is important for the agency to stay within our bounds. and makes the supreme court a little unpopular because everyone is like, we need to address climate change. we met the targets of what the 2015 amount -- obama administration's role. we met the targets without the regulation going into effect. there is no real injury from this decision and now there is an opportunity for congress to enact a durable policy and create good solutions. host: the wall street drawing your -- journal says -- one that a lot of economic factors to be considered on whether to let the

species -- in danger. regulations make them more difficult -- empty impact of climate change. how do the lower courts play into regulation? guest: they can block regulation going into affect our overturn pending. they lay the groundwork for the factual basis of the supreme court to consider. in this instance, it is a good example where some of these cases take place and help change the decisions. in some of the more liberal areas, they are more likely to strike down republican --. host: is it possible, if the court makes this decision, if

you move to the supreme court? guest: absolutely and they could reverse the decision. host: we have a viewer who texted us. he said if congress exercises the authority -- what is unconstitutional about that? guest: it has to do with the level of specificity. there are some folks that think there are specific powers that congress cannot delegate to agencies. for the most part, when there is clear authority from congress, then it is appropriate for the agency to act. host: we talked about the biden administration's approach to regulation. how do you describe the previous administration's approach? guest: they were trying to reduce regulatory cost but they

were not ultimately successful. regulation cost have been in provost best that came to $10 billion on an annual basis. the biden administration, their first year was 200 billion. it is a houston parker. host: when it comes to the trump administration, what was the significant amount of regulatory producing? guest: the biggest requirement was the road that rolled back the average mileage efficiency increase for mild. -- cars. counter to that point, the biden administration they ruled to reverse the rule. host: let's go to belle isle --

bilal in los angeles. caller: i would like to say that i agree with the supreme court in overturning roe v. wade. i think it is insane for women to abort their own children. it is like an alien coming down and saying we are forcing you to kill your own children. it does not make sense. host: we are talking about the regulatory impact in the supreme court decision. caller: -- make homosexuality illegal because it is mental illness. host: we will leave it there.

julius is next. guest: -- caller: good morning. in a world of over 7 billion people, you have to have regulations. it is just that simple. i heard trump say with my own ears, i heard him say the classic change is april. that is what he said. he also said that he is a genius. when a full say that, i am a stable genius? host: what would you like against to address? caller: he addressed it already. you have to regulate everything. that is common sense. host: a fine line between too much regulation and freedom for a company or a entity to

operate, where do you find that balance? guest: a great question. the folks that work in my line of work trying to grapple where -- with where is that line. it is certainly not a clear line. it is a case-by-case basis but what agencies try to do and ultimately what congress considers when they are enacting the statute, what is the right level of protection that we need to provide for a market or consumers or workers versus creating dynamism that allows prosperity. it is a balance. host: is there any examples of where that works as far as a -- that balance is concerned? guest: it is a tough question. i think we have seen a lot of benefits from clean air act rules in general and we have the market adapt to those. while clean air rules can be particularly costly, we have shown some flexibility in the

past where we are able to adapt to those. host: this is a viewer saying why can't congress do their jobs? guest: that is a good question. people are really upset with the supreme court right now. they should factor in that they said congress can do with epa had tried to do. if that is what you want, or not would you want, you shall let people who will actually give them the authority. host: are there any talk in congress to put things in motion to meet that --.ute that? --mute that? guest: i'm sure there is the have not seen anything specific since it came out for the july 4 holiday. i think there are a few cases down the stretch of the supreme court that now congress would mention. the action is unclear. host: judith in queens, new york.

democrats line. caller: morning. i am very disturbed of the balance. -- of the violence. what i am saying though. new york, bronx -- why are you sending them to pakistan and here, the terror is there. host: the congressional review act, what is it? guest: it is a statute that allows congress to overturn a rule agency issues -- issue by passing a resolution of disapproval. it has to be signed by the president. it is very infrequent that a president will sign something that overturns his or eventually her regulations. it has only been used about 17 or 18 times in its history.

host: in a instance if the house of representatives chose incident republican power after the midterm elections, is there any avenue for them to reverse regulation aside from the president signing that reversal? guest: the only avenue is trying to define best defined --defund the agency's ability to implement these rules through appropriations. that will also require the resident signature. -- president's signature. as opposed to what the standalone venture, obviously the entire venture system has a lot of implications in what rules. there's a lot more to consider. host: host: this is from sue in fairfax, virginia. republican line. good morning. caller: i am a consultant in financial services. and i have been studying and writing about the fcc rule for

climate change disclosure, the greenhouse gas emissions. it cost me to read a lot about articles about the climate change in general. the extremist language of how existential it is and zero by 20 60 --netzero by 2060. it is really pushing through some very forceful regulation, including the fcc regulation. i looked on mckinsey's website, they have a lot of good information about what these regulations would cost and how unattainable they are. i think they estimated going met --net zero by 2060 like over $700 trillion. this is really forceful and aggressive. i do not think attainable. calling it existential, meaning

our very existence. i heard politicians saying we have 12 years until we are dead. the oceans are rising. i have information with decades -- from another lawyer with decades of experience in climate science, they know that the adding of ocean and land is only expected to be at a maximum three feet, a maximum three feet. host: what would you like our host to address? caller: how about taking some of the money that the regulations is costing us and turning the market loose for supporting the market to investigate how to restore educate best energy -- restore energy because until batteries are able to restore energy, that will not work. guest: the market has a great

role to play in addressing climate change. they are far less efficient than something that is market based like a carbon past. --pass. one of the great disappointments in my view in the biden administration is willingness to rely solely on regulation is not going to get us were ready to go. host: this is from tony on twitter. why can't congress vote on the text of the final relations proposed by agencies, they may need to work a bit more. guest: it is a balance of power issue. once congress tells the executive to do something, it is that on the -- executive to say we take that back after we saw what you did with it and to

require congress to do that with every rule would be the unwieldy desk -- pretty -- -- princi unwieldy. it will be tricky to implement for practice. host: from miami, florida. we will be joined by elizabeth. a democrat. caller: good morning. i am 75 years old. this is not climate change, this is climate crisis. some scientists already -- are predicting we are in trouble by 2030. [indiscernible] -- including massacre -- develop

the best carbon capture, [indiscernible] if we stop killing them and throwing our paper and carver into landfill -- cardboard into landfill. anyway. host: thank you. guest: you sort of touched on a important point, climate change is a important issue it goes -- and a ghost -- it goes back to what i mentioned a few minutes ago, regulation is not going to get us where we need to go. we need to be investing in research and a lot of the market to be innovative in these areas to bring about the solutions that will get us where we need. host: we were off of twitter says -- a viewer all of twitter says it does not seem right that

a unelected entity to make regulation. that noncompliance would result in punishment by law. guest: congress actually authorizes an agency to do that. that is what gives the unelected bureaucrats the authority to do that. what supreme court is saying, the decision that we started off talking about and some of the earlier decisions, we need to be sure that congress has actually calling for unelected bureaucrats to do that. host: the other decisions, what are you referencing? guest: where osha had the rule to require large employers to get there employees vaccinated or testing weekly. they blocked that from going into place because they will that while osha has the ability to rule on workplace safety, they can't do some baby on the workplace. >> -- beyond the workplace. host: host: let's hear from dennis in wyoming. democrats line.

caller: the supreme court and the regulations and stuff in congress. the first thing congress needs to do is pass a code of ethics for the supreme court. that is just my comment. guest: yeah. that is something they can consider. we have seen some headlines that sort of questioned behavior, -- question on behavior, -- questionable behavior, maybe some related to the supreme court justices. host: aside from what we have been talking about, what other cases regarding regulation are coming down the pipe or at least things you're interested in seeing? guest: in the next term the supreme court is going to weigh in on the extent in which epa and the army corps engineers can regulate the water in the united states. that is something we will be seeing. i expect we will see several challenges to some of these biden administration roles, the fcc will is something -- rule

that was mentioned earlier was certainly one more rule. host: last call, go ahead. caller: given the system -- conservative lead of the court and maybe congress in the future, is this a historical precedent for this realignment of regulatory statures? maybe 50 years ago, there was a point where the supreme court has created or changed this regulatory aspect of what we are going through, maybe even more conservatively or aggressively? thank you. guest: great question. over time it tends to be more aggressive with giving the agencies more discretion to do some of these things. we are in a seachange where it is going to start tipping back to the conservative side

and putting the focus back on congress and requiring them to authorize these agencies to do do do things. host: thank you for your time. >> with roe v. wade overturned, c-span looking back at the consequential and high-profile rulings from the supreme court's latest term. watched west virginia versus environmental protection agency, the case that led to the court limiting the epa authority on greenhouse gas emissions. wife c-span, c-span now or for c-span -- c-span now door. -- c-span.org. >> go to our web research page

to watch the briefings and hearings. we will have a reaction from members of congress and the white house as well as journalists and authors talking about the invest asian. go to c-span now or/january-- c-span.org/january6. >> christopher waller will be speaking about inflation and monetary policy. that starts at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span. president biden will i worked late senator john mccain and 16 others the presidential medal of freedom which is the highest civilian honor. live coverage begins at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span and you can watch on our free c-span now viaf