Lauren Boebert, a fiery representative from Colorado, During a hearing in Congress on Wednesday, the head of the EPA laughed at Lauren Boebert because she seemed to not understand a recent Supreme Court ruling that aims to limit the power of federal agencies.
When Boebert asked Michael Regan, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, if the federal agency would still let “rouge bureaucrats enact unconstitutional regulations” after the court’s decision ending the 40-year run of the so-called Chevron standard, he looked confused.
“Do you understand what the judge said?” Regan asked the Colorado representative, calling her question “ill-formed.”
Boebert asked him the same thing again, but this time she stuck her heels in the sand and asked him which rules the EPA would “repeal” to follow the court’s order.
“The Supreme Court didn’t tell us to get rid of anything,” Regan told the representative as he laughed and shook his head.
The recent Supreme Court ruling in the case overturned the Chevron deference, which was a long-standing rule that let federal agencies rely on their knowledge to figure out what unclear language meant.
It is now up to the courts or Congress to decide how to read language when it comes up in court.
However, the ruling does not stop agencies from issuing more rules, which is what Boebert’s question seemed to suggest.
As both Regan and Boebert talked over each other, the conversation became more heated. In the end, Boebert changed his mind about the Chevron deference and started criticizing the EPA severely. She told Regan that she believed $500,000 should be cut from the EPA.
After the back and forth, Regan just stood there and looked at Boebert, shaking his head and leaving a gap in his mouth.
“Strangely, you spent so much time with our regional staff, regional administration, and regional aid talking about how we’re helping your district and state, and then you take this microphone and act like we don’t exist,” Regan said.
Regan told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Wednesday that he was “disappointed” by the Supreme Court’s recent decision and worried about how it would affect things.
He told the committee that the decision could make it harder for the EPA to understand and enforce rules about investments that are good for the environment, which has been a top priority for the last four years under Joe Biden’s administration.
Not long after Boebert and Regan’s conversation, Daniel Goldman, a representative from New York, made it clear that the Supreme Court was holding a meeting to “clarify” things.
You may remember that the Loper Bright decision said that if a law isn’t clear, the judges should figure out what it means instead of letting the agencies make the rules. Goldman agreed.
He also said, “That means that no rules would have to be changed or overturned.”
