Firebrand Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert Lauren Boebert was ridiculed by the head of the EPA during a congressional hearing Wednesday after he apparently misunderstood a recent Supreme Court ruling aimed at limiting the authority of federal agencies.
Michael Regan, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, gave Boebert a confused look when asked if the federal agency would continue to allow “evil bureaucrats to promulgate unconstitutional regulations” even after the court ruling that ended the 40-year term of the so-called Chevron standard.
“Do you understand the decision?” Regan asked the Colorado representative, calling his question “ill-formed.”
Boebert answered the same question and stuck his feet in the sand, asking him what regulations the EPA would “repeal” to adhere to the court’s ruling.
“The Supreme Court didn’t tell us to repeal anything,” Regan said before laughing and shaking her head at the congresswoman.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the case overturned the long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which allowed federal agencies to defer to their own experience in interpreting ambiguous language.
Now it is up to the courts or Congress to interpret language during legal challenges.
However, the decision does not prevent agencies from continuing to issue regulations — something Boebert’s question seemed to imply.
The exchange between Regan and Boebert grew more tense as the two sides began talking. Eventually, Boebert moved from deferring to Chevron to harshly criticizing the EPA. She told Regan that she thought EPA funding should be reduced “100 percent.”
At the end of the back and forth, Regan looked at Boebert shaking his head with his mouth open.
“It’s just shocking that you’ve spent so much time with our regional team, regional administration and regional aid and had such productive conversations about how we’re doing things for your district and your state and then you take this microphone and pretend that we shouldn’t exist.” , Regan said.
Regan testified before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Wednesday about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, saying he was “disappointed” and concerned about its impact.
He told committee members that the decision could harm the EPA’s ability to interpret language and implement regulations on climate-related investments — something the Joe Biden administration has prioritized over the past four years.
Shortly after the conversation between Boebert and Regan, New York representative Daniel Goldman clearly laid out the Supreme Court hearing for “clarification” purposes.
“O Bright Loper The ruling, as you know, said that the courts should not defer to the agency’s decision if a law was ambiguous and instead the courts should determine what the law means,” Goldman said.
He added: “Therefore, this would not require any regulations to be reversed or overturned.”
Regan agreed with that statement.
