[mwsfc]

So far, the government seems to not have provided any legal justification for this move. Would love to hear input from someone with legal experience that can shed some light on how the appeals process may look and the reasons why one side may prevail over the other.

[DiffEq]

This is rather simple; EPA is a part of the Executive Branch. He is the Chief Executive. So he can do these things. This is the way the government is set up under the Constitution of the U.S.

[bt848]

The executive branch is not able to just do whatever it wants. The Clean Air Act enumerates specific reasons why the EPA can deny California's waiver.

[bluGill]

I would argue that under the constitution the EPA is only there to enforce the rules congress sets up, but not make the rules. Thus Trump (the executive) cannot do this, only congress can.

The above is not an argument that has seen much success though.

[wang_li]

Do you know that the reason California was able to set their own standards is because Congress passed a law and part of that law enabled the executive branch to grant waivers? This 100% is following the law as written by Congress.

That being said, when you say "enforce the rules congress sets up", you are touching on an issue that many on the conservative side of the aisle frequently complain about, specifically that Congress often passes laws that leave enormous amounts of discretion to regulatory agencies. Sometimes literally saying "establish regulations that are meant to achieve X goal" and leaving the actual rules, that have the full force of law, up to bureaucrats to establish.

[DiffEq]

This is not how it works though. Congress created the EPA with a Mandate and the power to create more rules/regulations on it's own that carry the force of law. This makes it easier for them because in theory they get to pass a law and hand it over to what are supposed to be experts to carry out the purpose. But this creation of congress is governed by the Executive Branch; meaning they just ceded a bunch of power to the President. So that is why the EPA can do things on its own and also why the President can intervene in ways like this. This is the case for every piece of bureaucracy that congress creates.

[bluGill]

I know that is how it works. I disagree. The job of congress is to write/pass the laws/rules, not delegate it to someone else.

I'm not against the EPA writing a proposed law and then sending it to congress to pass: it is not possible for congress to be expert enough to write all the required regulations correctly. However it should be (in my opinion which you don't seem to get) up to congress to pass the rule or not in the end.

I will allow the executive to make a temporary regulation until congress can pass the law, but only so far as the law goes into effect (if passed) on the date of the regulation, until congress passes the law nothing will happen if you violate it - of course if it passes that is willful violation which may have a higher price to pay. If you can convince congress not to pass the law the regulation disappears at the end of the next session of congress and cannot be brought back.

[sjg007]

Well it is kind of temporary when Congress is functioning normally. The President can say hey I’m doing this and Congress could say no..

[lightedman]

The Executive Branch does not have the power to just unilaterally violate something granted by Congress to a State. There is a whole slew of States rights and checks and balances issues in this one simple action.

[inscionent]

Yup. Super simple. There won't be years of litigation and tons of wasted human effort because of Trump's bad faith temper tantrum.