“Not a Scientist,” Just a (Likely) Supreme Court Justice: What Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Might Portend for Climate Change and Environmental Regulation

Oct 23, 2020

Reading Time : 4 min

During her confirmation hearings, Judge Barrett responded to questions on climate change from Sens. John Kennedy (R-LA ), Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) by framing climate change as an issue of policy, not science. Judge Barrett referred to the issue as a “a very contentious matter of public debate” while informing the senators that she is “certainly not a scientist” and has no “firm views” on the issue, echoing statements made by the late Justice Scalia on the same topic.1 Although Judge Barrett was careful to avoid committing herself to specific rulings (a practice that generally accepted principles of judicial ethics prohibit), has a slim record as a judge on environmental issues and has not ruled on any climate-related issues since her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2017, it is widely expected that she would vote with the Court’s other conservatives on cases involving environmental regulation and efforts to combat climate change.

Should a Justice Barrett and the Court’s other conservative justices vote as expected, we are likely to see the Court take a dim view of administrative efforts to use older legislation to regulate new environmental problems. As a self-described textualist, she will assess the validity of a regulation based upon a plain reading of the statute rather than its purpose. Federal agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior may find that restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, regulation of discharges to waterbodies and wetlands that lack permanence or obvious connections to major waterways, and broader protections for endangered and threatened species would not pass muster if the Court has a say.2 Likewise, environmental groups may face an increasingly steep battle even getting into court in their attempts to force the federal government to more stringently regulate the environment and meet international climate goals.3

So far this term, the Court has granted certiorari to hear a dispute over removal to federal court of a city’s action to recover damages against energy companies under state law for alleged harms it will sustain due to climate change.4 The Court has pending certiorari petitions relating to Washington’s denial of port access to ship Montana and Wyoming coal to foreign markets, and condemnation of state land by companies holding Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-issued certificates of public necessity to build and operate interstate natural gas pipelines.5 Judge Barrett’s nomination also could help secure President Trump’s environmental legacy by upholding challenges to his administration’s controversial revocation of a Clean Air Act waiver to the State of California and related replacement of standards governing emissions from light-duty vehicles; rescission and replacement of the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule; and numerous other rulemakings from the President’s first term in office—all of which are in the pipeline to head to the Supreme Court.

Even if President Trump were to lose the 2020 election, a Justice Barrett could stymie attempts by a Biden administration to enact many components of Biden’s $2 trillion climate plan and portions of the Green New Deal that the Democratic presidential nominee has embraced. The constitutionality of many environmental laws is premised on the notion that environmental degradation substantially affects interstate commerce and thus falls within the ambit of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers. A Justice Barrett can be expected to circumscribe this power, perhaps to a degree that parallels the restrictive interpretations of the Commerce Clause’s reach that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have called for in prior opinions.6

While we still may see unexpected rulings from the Supreme Court from time to time, a successful Barrett nomination and the Court’s most solid conservative majority in decades all but guarantees that the impacts of President Trump’s deregulatory environmental agenda will outlast his first term, regardless of the outcome of this year’s elections.


1 Nomination of the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 3) Before the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (2020) (statement of the Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, 7th Cir. Court of Appeals); see also “2012 Commencement Colloquy – Shirley Ann Jackson and Antonin Scalia,” YOUTUBE (Jun. 1, 2019), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr40kbqW03k (statement that Justice Scalia “[doesn’t] do science; [he] does the law”).

2 See Mary Haley Ousley, Precedent, Politics, or Priorities: Are Courts Stepping out of Their Traditional Judicial Bounds when Addressing Climate Change?, 25 HASTINGS W.-N.W. J. ENV. L. & POL’Y 349, 358 (2019) (describing the potential impact of a conservative Supreme Court on the future of environmental regulation).

3 See Scott W. Stern, Standing for Everyone: Sierra Club v. Morton, Supreme Court Deliberations, and a Solution to the Problem of Environmental Standing, 30  FORDHAM ENVTL. L. Rev. 21, 26-27 (2019) (connecting conservative legal doctrine to the restrictive nature of environmental standing).

4 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, BP p.l.c. v. Mayor of Balt., 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3704 (No. 19-1189) (petition granted Oct. 2, 2020).

5 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Mont. & Wyo. V. Wash., 2020 U.S. LEXIS 4145 (No. 22-0152) ( whether Washington’s denial of port access to ship Montana and Wyoming coal to foreign markets violates the commerce clause); PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3486 (No. 19-1039) (whether companies holding FERC-issued certificates of public necessity to build and operate interstate natural gas pipelines may exercise eminent domain over land in which a state claims an interest).

6 See, e.g., Rapanos v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006) (opinion of Scalia, J.) (rejecting the Corps’ interpretation of the Clean Water Act phrase “waters of the United States” to the full extent of Congress’s commerce power, and espousing a more limited interpretation of the phrase); United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 1643 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment) (suggesting that Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce is limited to the regulation of trade and transportation for the purpose of trade).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

August 15, 2025

On August 8, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an enforcement order in Skye MS, LLC (Skye) and levied a $45,000 civil penalty on an intrastate pipeline operator in Mississippi, resolving an investigation into the operator’s violations of section 311 (Section 311) of the Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA). FERC faulted the operator for providing a Section 311 transportation service without timely filing a Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) and obtaining FERC’s approval for the transportation rates. Section 311 permits intrastate pipelines to transport interstate gas “on behalf of” interstate pipelines without becoming subject to FERC’s more extensive Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdiction, but requires the intrastate pipeline to have an SOC stating the rates and terms and conditions of service on file with FERC within 30 days of providing the interstate service. Under the NGPA, Section 311 rates must be “fair and equitable” and approved by FERC. In Skye, FERC stated that the operator began providing Section 311 service on certain pipeline segments in Mississippi in May 2023, following their acquisition from another Section 311 operator, but did not file an SOC with FERC until April 2025. The order ties the penalty to the approximately two-year delay between commencement of the Section 311 service and the SOC filing date. The pipeline operator was also ordered to provide an annual compliance report and to abide by additional verification requirements related to the filing of its FERC Form No. 549D, the Quarterly Transportation & Storage Report for Intrastate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

August 6, 2025

In Sierra Club v. FERC, No. 24-1199 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of a 1,000-foot natural gas pipeline segment crossing the United States-Mexico border (the Border Pipeline) under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), rejecting environmental groups’ challenges that FERC improperly limited its analysis under both the NGA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as related to a 155-mile intrastate “Connector Pipeline” constructed upstream of the Border Pipeline in Texas.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 17, 2025

On July 15, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued an order1 proposing to eliminate the soft price cap of $1,000 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for bilateral spot sales in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) that was implemented following the California energy crisis. If adopted, the Commission’s proposal would eliminate the requirement that sellers make a filing with FERC cost justifying spot market sales in excess of the soft price cap, which have become increasingly common in recent years as market conditions have continued to tighten throughout the West. Eliminating the WECC soft price cap would provide sellers that make sales during periods when prices exceed the cap greater certainty that their sales will not be second guessed after the fact.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2025

On June 4–5, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) hosted a commissioner-led technical conference to discuss resource adequacy challenges facing regional transmission organizations and independent system operators (RTO). The conference is a response to the growing concern that multiple RTO regions across the country may not have sufficient supply available in the coming years to meet demand due to resource retirements, the pace of new generation entry and higher load growth arising from the construction of data centers and reindustrialization.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2025

We are pleased to share the presentation slide deck and a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Navigating U.S. Policy Shifts in the Critical Minerals Sector.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 10, 2025

On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced revisions to its procedures for pipeline safety enforcement actions. The changes, outlined in two new policy memoranda from PHMSA’s Office of the Chief Counsel (PHC), aim to enhance due process protections for pipeline operators by clarifying how civil penalties are calculated and expanding the disclosure of agency records in enforcement proceedings.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

May 22, 2025

On May 19, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) finalized its 2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports (the 2024 Study) through the release of a Response to Comments on the 2024 Study. The Response to Comments concludes that the 2024 Study, as augmented through public comments submitted on or before March 20, 2025, supporting a finding that liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports serve the public interest. With the comment process complete, DOE will move forward with final orders on pending applications to export LNG to non-free trade agreement (non-FTA) countries.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

May 20, 2025

On Thursday, May 15, the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Freight, Pipelines and Safety held a hearing titled, “Pipeline Safety Reauthorization: Ensuring the Safe and Efficient Movement of American Energy.” The hearing examined legislative priorities for reauthorizing the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.