Judicial Entanglements With Green Policies in American Legal System

The United States is still the largest economy in the world, so the green transition actions carried out there should be a kind of memento for EU authorities. The paper will be devoted to the changing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, which has a fundamental impact on the validity of decisions of a political or regulatory nature passed by Congress, state legislatures and issued by the President or executive agencies, but also on individual decisions issued by the latter in relation to the implementation of specific investments. In the other hand CJEU has not yet dealt with a comprehensive assessment or even an interpretation of the provisions of the FIT for 55 package. However, taking into account the changing priorities of the EU, above all the constantly increasing expenditure on armaments, it should be expected that such judicial actions may take place in the future. In the absence of the will of the political authorities, the judgment of the Court may become the only way to implement these provisions. For forty years (1984-2024), the United States Supreme Court's approach was shaped by the unanimous judgment in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. According to wich, federal courts reviewing environmental decisions should be dictated by the guidelines and interpretations of relevant laws made by regulatory executive agencies. In the 21st century, this carte blanche for regulatory agencies has begun to be reduced in favor of the judicial intervention. This trend began when in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., the SCOTUS held that Congress should not delegate significant policy decisions to executive agencies unless specific guidelines and criteria were established to guide them. Similarly, in King v. Burwell the Court noted that exempting the decisions and opinions of regulatory agencies may not be the most prudent alternative to implement regulations adopted by Congress that are supposed to protect the environment or the indivual rights and freedoms, especially in the context of regulatory actions of ‘deep economic and political significance’. Eventually, this concept became known as the ‘major questions doctrine. Finally, in 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the precedent resulting from the 1984 Chevron decision. The purpose of this study is to answer the question of the direction in which the Supreme Court's adjudication is heading in the spheres that, according to the assumptions of American political thought, were to be resolved outside the political discourse by regulatory agencies and what consequences this may have for the constitutional role of the Supreme Court. For the purposes of this text I’ve used four main research methods: dogmatic, historical, axiological, and statistical. A lot of space was also devoted, which is particularly important in the context of the American legal system, to the analysis of Supreme Court’s precedents.