The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with states challenging part of the Clean Air Act, specifically the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Good Neighbor Provision” that involves federal policing of pollution across state lines.
Three states had asked the Supreme Court to immediately stop the federal government from imposing a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from state to state, as their appeal is pending in lower courts.
The states argued that if the justices didn’t halt the EPA’s plan now, they would suffer economic harm and potential damage to the power grid.
In a 5-4 ruling, the majority reasoned that the EPA’s plan likely runs afoul of “long-settled standards.” The court granted a stay of the EPA’s plan until the federal appeals court weighs in on the merits of the legal battle.
“Enforcement of EPA’s rule against the applicants shall be stayed pending the disposition of the applicants’ petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the court.
Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying they would have allowed the EPA to proceed while the litigation plays out.
The dissent argued that it is unlikely the states would win on the merits, so the EPA’s rule should not be delayed.
“To prevail on the Court’s theory, applicants must show that EPA’s actions were ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious,’” Justice Barrett wrote in the dissent. “Given the explanations and state-agnostic methodology apparent in the final rule and its supporting documentation — and the paucity of comments specifically raising the issue — EPA may well have done enough to justify its plan’s severability.”
The legal battle began when Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia argued that the Environmental Protection Agency has usurped the Clean Air Act by misunderstanding the federal government’s role.
The Biden administration issued aggressive plans that impose requirements on the states, setting up a federalism conflict.
Under the federal rule, states are required to develop plans to reduce emissions and improve air quality from one state to another.
As long as a state shows it has reduced emissions, the federal government is supposed to approve the plan, the states argue. Instead, they say, the government has rejected plans from nearly two dozen states and moved to impose its own agenda.
SEE ALSO: Supreme Court gives Biden administration a win in Idaho abortion case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did not agree to halt the federal plan, but the states had argued six other federal appeals courts did halt the EPA’s rule.
The Good Neighbor Plan is aimed at improving air quality across states’ borders.
Pipeline companies had also joined the states’ legal battle, arguing the EPA’s plan imposes “impossible” standards on their industry.
The American Petroleum Institute said it “welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision to stay this flawed rule,” warning that the regulations put Americans at risk of brownouts and power outages.
“Americans are looking for pragmatic energy solutions, not misguided policies that threaten to undermine energy reliability by forcing operators to take pipeline engines—a vital technology to ensure natural gas can reach consumers — out of operations,” said Ryan Meyers, API’s senior vice president and general counsel. “The Court’s decision prevents the risk of electric power outages and crippling delays to industrial supply chains for now.”
Meanwhile, environmentalists decried the ruling, declaring that the high court has “sided with polluting industries and against clean air.”
“This ruling goes against the clear statutory authority of the EPA to regulate interstate air pollution,” said Trevor Higgins, senior vice president for energy and environment for the Center for American Progress. “Even more troubling, the court took the highly unusual step of hearing this case without waiting for the lower court to issue a decision. The result is that downwind states will continue to suffer the consequences of fossil fuel pollution from upwind states.”
• Valerie Richardson contributed to this report.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.