injured parties. I don't see how you can say that there isn't deference there. "Here, the judgment below vacated the ACE rule and its embedded repeal of the Clean Power Plan, and accordingly purports to bring the Clean Power Plan back into legal effect. There is little question that the petitioner States are injured, since the rule requires them to more stringently regulate power plant emissions within their borders."

Yes, I disagree with the ruling that EPA does not have that authority. No I'm not going to agree with the blanket statement following "I cannot imagine you disagree..." EPA doesn't have the authority to regulate banking. This policy is not "anything it wants at any time for any reason." It is a policy that is within its mandate.

I will also go back you your assertion that this is a limited decision. Strictly speaking, they are only ruling on the question, while they opine on the authority not only of administrative agencies but also of executive orders. This is not a one time ruling. It will be used as precedent, a precedent the Court will selectively respect, to undermine other agency authority, as this Court has already done with OSHA.

Serious question for you, too. Who do you think benefits from this decision today? I think that question is important.