Experts warned that the ruling is a major step backwards in stopping climate change.

Yesterday, as part of an ongoing series of deeply controversial decisions including overturning Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court ruled to reduce the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to limit emissions from power plants around the country.

The court stated that it is “not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme,” adding that a “decision of such magnitude and consequence” should be up to Congress.

Climate experts have chimed in on the ruling, calling it a dangerous and counterintuitive stance against the effort to curb global climate change. In an interview with CBS, climate and health behavioral scientist Sweta Chakraborty said that the Supreme Court “took a sledgehammer to one of EPA’s most important tools.”

“We’re talking about increased air pollution that has impacts on human health, the environment, and generally our future trajectory towards planet warming, which we desperately need to veer off of,” she said, adding that “The fossil fuel interests behind this case claiming victory today are taking us back 50 years to when Big Oil and other corporations could pump deadly pollution into our air and water without any limits.”

Not only could relaxing these restrictions worsen the existing climate change crisis, but Chakraborty expressed concerns that the EPA could lose some of its other regulatory powers in the future, with this case setting a precedent.

“This is really going against all of the evidence and science that we know is requiring more regulation,” Chakraborty said. “Having this type of ruling is actually saying … we can actually unapologetically support the polluting of our communities in the United States. And that’s an extremely dangerous path to go down.”