> I don't think that's true. Consider a case that is doing statutory interpretation to resolve a conflict between two federal laws. There is no question about the constitutional authority of Congress or any other body here.

There was no question about the constitutional authority of Congress in the other case. They were interpreting the Clean Air act and concluded it didn't enable the EPA to do this.

> Yes. The Supreme Court is a political body, like any other.

They generally try to avoid political issues and punt them to the elected branches.

> Notably, West Virginia v EPA took on a regulation that had already been reversed by the Trump administration.

'The case was not rendered moot when the Biden administration took over in 2020, as the EPA under the Biden administration stated their inclination to include "outside the fence line" controls, making the case still relevant to the authority the EPA had in interpreting their Congressional charter.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA)

> And yet, the Clean Air Act exists. Congress could edit it or repeal it if they wanted.

You keep saying "the Clean Air Act exists" but the question is what it authorizes the EPA to do.

They could pretty easily impose costs on fossil fuel generators that make them uncompetitive and thereby cause a switch to other generation methods, but that would raise energy costs for consumers in the meantime, which would be unpopular. So they wanted to do something else, but the something else wasn't a thing the law authorized the EPA to do, so if you want that you need to change the law.