Lauren Boebert laughed at during House hearing with EPA head

Sign up for the daily Inside Washington email for exclusive US coverage and analysis sent to your inbox Get our free Inside Washington email Please enter a valid email address Please enter a valid email address SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy Thanks for signing up to the

Inside Washington email {{ #verifyErrors }} {{ message }} {{ /verifyErrors }} {{ ^verifyErrors }} Something went wrong. Please try again later {{ /verifyErrors }}

Firebrand Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert Lauren Boebert was laughed at by the head of the EPA during a Congressional hearing on Wednesday after seemingly misunderstanding a recent Supreme Court’s decision that aims to limit federal agencies’ authority.

Michael Regan, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, gave Boebert a befuddled look when she asked him if the federal agency would continue enabling “rouge bureaucrats to enact unconstitutional regulations” even after the court’s decision that ended the 40-year run of the so-called Chevron standard.

“Do you understand the ruling?” Regan asked the Colorado rep, calling her question “ill-formed.”

Boebert fired back the same question and dug her heels in the sand, asking him which 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 his head at the congresswoman.

Michael Regan, head of the EPA, stares at Representative Lauren Boebert during a hearing on Wednesday ( CPSAN )

The recent Supreme Court’s decision in the case overturned the longheld precedent known as the Chevron deference that allowed federal agencies to defer to their own expertise when interpreting ambiguous language.

Now, it is up to the courts or Congress to interpret language during legal challenges.

However, the ruling 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 both sides began talking over each other. Eventually, Boebert pivoted from the Chevron deference to harshly criticizing the EPA. She told Regan she thought EPA funding should be scaled back “100 percent.”

By the end of the back-and-forth, Regan stared at Boebert shaking his head with his mouth a gap.

“It’s just shocking you spent so much time with our regional staff and regional administration and region aid and have such productive conversations about how we’re doing things for your district and your state and then you take this microphone and you pretend that we should not exist,” Regan said.

Regan testified to the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Wednesday about the Supreme Court’s recent decision, saying he was “disappointed” and concerned about its impact.

He told committee members that the decision could hurt the EPA’s ability to interpret language and implement regulations about climate-related investments – something the Joe Biden administration has prioritized over the last four years.

Shortly after Boebert and Regan’s exchange, New York Representative Daniel Goldman pointedly spelled out the Supreme Court’s hearing for “clarify” purposes.

“The Loper Bright ruling, as you know, said that the courts should not defer to agency rule-making if a statute is ambiguous and instead the courts get to determine what the statute means,” Goldman said.

He added, “So that would not require any regulations to be reversed or overturned.”