In an unorthodox move, Jones Day incorporated a Kamala Harris meme into their latest Supreme Court filing, attempting to inject a touch of humor into an otherwise grave environmental litigation. Their client, NACCO Natural Resources Corporation, is challenging an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that mandates carbon capture and sequestration technology, aimed at achieving a 90% reduction in emissions by the 2030s. Jones Day’s argument hinges on the notion that this technology is not yet commercially viable, drawing a parallel to early resistance to mandatory airbag requirements in vehicles. As regulations often face resistance from first adopters due to economic disadvantages, the EPA’s role in enforcing such uniform standards becomes crucial for broader adoption.
The Kamala meme, styled as “what can be unburdened by what has been,” refers to a statement by Vice President Harris. In the context of regulatory practices, this phrase paradoxically underlines the firm’s point about the importance of adopting new technologies despite their initial lack of commercial use. While Jones Day’s attempt at appearing “hip” via the meme may come across as “cringe” to some, it underscores the complexities surrounding regulatory enforcement and innovation in environmental technology.
This case, NACCO Natural Resources Corporation v. EPA, follows in the footsteps of the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright, which questioned the traditional Chevron deference, a principle that courts should defer to administrative agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes. Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the Loper Bright opinion, may likely be skeptical towards the EPA’s expertise despite the agency’s scientific foundation, bringing into question the efficacy and future of such environmental regulations. More details on the case can be found here.
Jones Day’s unconventional approach highlights the ongoing tension between regulatory enforcement and commercial readiness, a dynamic that continues to shape the future of environmental policy in the United States. The pivotal question remains whether the Supreme Court will endorse this perspective, potentially setting a precedent for how emerging technologies are regulated.