In theory, the law is meant not only to protect individuals, but also to create rules for the betterment of society as a whole. So then how is it that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan (CPP), perhaps the country’s biggest climate change initiative, appears to be in real danger?

The CPP mandates a hefty reduction of carbon emissions from U.S. power plants, and that’s a good thing, both for the renewables industry and, with any luck, for future generations.

Not everyone thinks so, though: A coalition of over 20 states launched a legal battle contesting the policy last year, claiming the CPP regulations give the federal government too much power, would prove costly and are slated to hinder the coal industry.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court made a shocking decision to temporarily halt the CPP while the lawsuit is sorted out. The ruling didn’t officially sound the death knell for the plan, but it is cause for concern. At the time, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the Obama administration remains “confident that we will prevail on the merits” of the CPP.

However, it’s obvious that laws are open to interpretation, and, thus, case outcomes depend on the interpreter. For example, a lower federal court actually rejected the request for a stay of the CPP not long before the Supreme Court made its ruling. Furthermore, the SCOTUS decision was a tight, 5-4 vote - that means four of the justices were against the stay.

Regardless of how the lawsuit pans out in the lower court, the ultimate fate of the CPP will likely rest in the hands of the SCOTUS justices. And with the recent passing of Antonin Scalia, his replacement - a new interpreter - could solely determine whether the CPP lives or dies. Majority wins.

At press time, Republicans and Democrats in Congress are bickering and playing partisan politics, per usual, with the former having vowed to deny any of President Barack Obama’s SCOTUS nominees and ensure Obama’s successor chooses who fills the court’s empty seat.

Given that his administration created the CPP, it’s safe to say Obama’s nominee would vote to uphold the policy. Meanwhile, one loud-mouthed presidential candidate, who shall go unnamed, has said he would slash funding for the EPA and even suggested he might try to eliminate the agency altogether. In a Fox News Sunday interview, he called the EPA’s environmental efforts “a disgrace,” adding, “Every week , they come out with new regulations.”

For myriad reasons, this election could be a very important turning point in history. One of the most critical reasons is the CPP. The fact is that climate change is real - just ask the 200 or so country leaders who signed the Paris Agreement - and something must be done before it’s too late. The CPP is one of the U.S.’ strongest weapons to combat global warming. Let’s not lose this battle.