(1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule.
Holding
The applications for a stay are granted; enforcement of EPA’s rule against the applicants shall be stayed pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D. C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the
Clean Air Act.
Background
The United States
Clean Air Act is a law intended to reduce the impacts of
air pollution. In the Clean Air Act, there is a section called the "Good Neighbor" provision, which mandates states to implement policies to reduce the impact of air pollution on other states, such as
asthma or
bronchitis.[1] In October 2015, the
Environmental Protection Agency set new standard for reduction of
ozone pollution.[1] This required states to submit
State Implementation Plans (SIPs).[2] In 2022, the EPA announced that it would be denying 23 states' SIPs.[2] In response, the EPA proposed a Federal Implementation Plan that amended the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.[3] The EPA had a right to do this under the Clean Air Act. Three plaintiffs, collectively referred to as "Ohio," filed an
emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court
Ohio claimed that the EPA's federal implementation plan would put undue pressure on the U.S.
electrical grid. The EPA argued that the plan contained important public benefits that if halted would cause delays in improving air quality that could be harmful. The EPA also argued that Ohio did not demonstrate any harm that would arise if the plan remained in effect while the legal proceedings continued. The Supreme Court did not put the EPA plan on hold while legal proceedings were underway. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the EPA plan would be
stayed pending petition for review and
writ of certiorari.
Majority opinion
Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court, which
John Roberts,
Samuel Alito,
Clarence Thomas, and
Brett Kavanaugh joined. They claimed that the EPA's methodology in their report was misreported and incorrect. They applied the Clean Air Act's section that allows a court to reverse a federal implementation plan if it is "arbitrary or capricious" and found in favor of Ohio.[4][5]
^
abUnited States, U.S. Supreme Court (U.S.). Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency. United States Reports, vol. 603, 27 June 2024. Supreme Court, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2024.