Supreme Court blocks Biden’s air pollution plan
The Supreme Court temporarily put on hold On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a plan to tackle air pollution drifting across state lines. This is another blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to protect the environment.
The ruling follows recent decisions that undermine the agency’s authority to address climate change and water pollution.
Under the proposal, known as the “Good Neighbor Plan,” factories and power plants in the Western and Midwestern states would reduce ozone pollution that spills over into the Eastern states. The emissions cause smog and are linked to asthma, lung disease and premature death.
The ruling was provisional, but even the temporary loss to the government will put the plan on hold for many months and perhaps longer.
The vote was 5-4. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said the court’s ruling was modest and paused the administration’s plan in light of developments in lower courts. He said the Supreme Court’s stay would remain in place while a federal appeals court in Washington considers the case and then until the Supreme Court rules on any appeal.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, supported by the court’s three liberal members, issued a spirited dissent, predicting that the majority had created a “years-long exercise in futility.”
“Given the number of companies involved and the timelines for review,” she wrote, “the court’s order leaves large portions of the Windward States free to continue contributing significantly to the ozone problems of their Downwind neighbors for years to come.” ”
She called one argument from the majority opinion “a weak response.” Another, she said, “throws a carefully selected assortment of EPA statements at the wall.”
“None stick,” she added.
Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, criticized the majority’s approach, calling it reckless.
“The court’s extraordinary decision today to grant an emergency stay is a travesty of justice that endangers the lives and health of millions of people,” she said.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey welcomed the decision.
“The nation’s power grid is already under strain, and now this administration is seeking to add more regulations that will put even more strain on the power grid,” he said in a statement. “This Supreme Court decision is correct, but the EPA will continue to attempt to legislate and circumvent Congress’ authority.”
The Supreme Court will soon decide the larger question of whether courts should defer to agencies like the EPA’s reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws passed by Congress.
Under the Clean Air Act, states are allowed to come up with their own plans, subject to EPA approval. In February 2023, the agency concluded that 23 states had not developed adequate plans to meet the revised ozone standards. The agency subsequently issued its own plans.
A wave of lawsuits followed, and seven federal appeals courts blocked the EPA’s disapproval of plans submitted by a dozen states. This left eleven states subject to federal regulations.
That was significant, Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Together, these 12 states accounted for more than 70 percent of the emissions the EPA planned to address,” he wrote. The question, he said, was what happens “when many of the states in the wind” are no longer governed by the federal plan “and it may now only cover a fraction of the states and emissions that the EPA projected?”
The answer, he said, was to put the federal plan on hold. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion.
Judge Barrett responded that lower courts’ deferment against the agency’s disapproval of state plans was of little consequence. While the plans “have been temporary remained,” she wrote, “no court has yet invalidated one.”
Moreover, there was good reason to think, she wrote, “that EPA’s methodology for calculating cost-effectiveness thresholds and imposing emissions controls was not dependent on the number of states in scope.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Judge Barrett’s dissent.
Three states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia, along with energy companies and trade groups — have challenged the federal plan directly in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. When a divided three-judge panel of that court refused to suspend the rule while the lawsuit continued, the challengers asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The request of the three states urged the justices to block the new rule in light of the appeals courts’ rulings, saying that “the federal plan is already a failed experiment” and is “a mere shell of its original self.” ”
The EPA responded that the preliminary rulings on the state plans should not affect the national rule and that blocking them would have serious consequences.
“It would slow efforts to control the pollution that contributes to unhealthy air in leeward states, contrary to Congress’ express directive that sources in leeward states must take responsibility for their contributions to emissions levels in leeward states,” the agency said.
The four consolidated cases, including Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23A349, reached the court via emergency motions, which are typically handled summarily. The court’s decision to hear arguments in such a situation—on whether to grant a stay—was relatively rare.
Judge Barrett said this was the wrong setting in which to make an important ruling.
“The court today orders enforcement of a major Environmental Protection Agency rule based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits,” she wrote. “In doing so, the court is providing emergency relief in a fact-intensive and highly technical case without fully delving into both the relevant law and the extensive file.”
The challengers, she wrote, “cannot meet the strict conditions for enlightenment in this position.”
