SCOTUS attacks on Indigenous Sovereignty, Abortion Care and Climate spark backlash
Over the past several weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a series of hot-button rulings demonstrating the power of the court’s conservative majority to exert control from sea to rising sea. While the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that overturned the precedent of Roe v. Wade has sparked the most outrage and attention, the court also issued extremely significant rulings impacting the methods the EPA can use to fight climate change and Indigenous Nations’ ability to independently prosecute criminal cases against their people.
SCOTUS deals blow to carbon emissions enforcement in West Virginia v. EPA ruling
SCOTUS ruled in favor of the fossil fuel industry in the case of West Virginia v. EPA. The 6-3 decision will harm the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to protect the environment by enforcing limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants using Section 111D of the Clean Air Act.
The narrow majority opinion mandates that section 111D of the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA constitutional authority to tell power plants how much carbon dioxide they can release; instead, the court delegated that authority to Congress. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, however, does not completely eliminate the EPA’s ability to enforce environmental protections aimed at greenhouse gases, nor does it make addressing the climate crisis impossible.
For concerned citizens and organizations fighting to enact effective climate policy in the United States, there are still many options as pointed out by Drilled Podcast host Amy Westervelt in her piece, “Even in the Worst-Case Scenario with West Virginia v EPA, We Still Have Pathways to Climate Action.” Westervelt points out that in addition to various sections of the Clean Air Act, there are still many ways to reign in U.S. emissions such as using the EPA authority to protect Americans against particulate matter, using the Toxic Substances Control Act, federal legislation, executive orders, the Defense Production Act as well as structural changes in the government system, such as packing the courts, reforming the filibuster or revolution.
Indigenous Sovereignty weakened by precedent set in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
The 5-4 ruling in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta will give states increased legal authority over crimes committed against Native people on tribal land where the accused is a non-Native person. “The Supreme Court’s decision today is an attack on tribal sovereignty and the hard-fought progress of our ancestors to exercise our inherent sovereignty over our own territories,” said National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) President Fawn Sharp.
The majority opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh breaks hundreds of years of precedent by giving state law enforcement agencies increased authority over Sovereign Native land. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote, “where this Court once stood firm, today it wilts.”
The Indigenous Nations situated in Oklahoma were at the center of the case, but the ruling could affect all Tribal Nations across the portion of Turtle Island known as the United States, despite serious questions about whether SCOTUS has authority over this matter as opposed to Congress, which can pass treaties with sovereign nations. A statement from the Cherokee Nation said, “the Court failed in its duty to honor this nation’s promises, defied Congress’s statutes, and accepted the ‘lawless disregard of the Cherokee’s sovereignty.’”
‘We are not alone’: abortion care access in a collapsing climate
Following the 6-3 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, states such as Texas will soon enforce ‘trigger laws’ that automatically ban abortion in the wake of the ruling. Abortion care bans unfairly target the poor and working-class, as more privileged people can afford to take time off work and travel out of state in order to access abortion care.
With climate collapse threatening the future, many people are having second thoughts about bearing children in the first place. In August of 2021, the IPCC released its starkest warning for humanity yet, stating that global temperatures are likely to surpass the 1.5 degree Celsius mark within two decades. This report warns of a bleak future, taking many people’s thoughts of children off the table.
Warmer temperatures, wildfires, floods, hurricanes, droughts, and other more intense natural disasters are wreaking damage on the mental health of young folks. In a recent study conducted in ten countries with 10,000 participants ages 16 to 25, 45% of those surveyed said that the climate crisis has “negatively affected their daily life and functioning.”
“It’s too unethical to bring a child into this world,” states Grace Doleshel, a young activist from Washington, who has made a pact with her partner not to have kids. “It’s basically setting the child up for an unhealthy life of physical and mental issues… I don’t ever want to subject someone to that if I don’t have to.”
“When so many people are struggling to take care of themselves not only mentally, but also with increasing economic disparities,” says Julia Nicholson, environmentalist and reproductive justice activist based in Texas, “forcing people to go through unwanted pregnancies is beyond cruel.”
Even for people who choose to start having children, climate change may actually harm people’s ability to reproduce. According to a UCLA study, “days with a mean temperature above 80 degrees Fahrenheit cause a large decline in birth rates 8 to 10 months later.” The study also presents evidence that warmer weather harms fertility and reproductive health.
Support Independent Climate Journalism
The mission of Branch Out is simple: Fight for climate justice with truth and trees.
We are working at the cutting edge of climate action and journalism, developing a regenerative funding model which makes carbon farming the foundation of our media efforts as we work towards designing a carbon-negative media ecosystem.