TL/DR –
The US Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears likely to temporarily halt an effort by the Biden administration to control air pollution that drifts between states. This is part of the administration’s “good neighbor” plan, which requires factories and power plants in Western and Midwestern states to cut ozone pollution that drifts into Eastern states. However, there is division over whether to block this plan, with recent rulings limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to address climate change and water pollution, setting the stage for potential further setbacks for the agency.
Supreme Court May Halt Biden’s Air Pollution Effort
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is inclined to pause the Biden administration’s “good neighbor” plan to address air pollution drifting across state lines. This likely outcome follows recent rulings limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to combat climate change and water pollution.
The “good neighbor” plan, affecting 23 states, mandates Western and Midwestern factories and power plants to cut ozone emissions affecting Eastern states. These emissions cause smog and health problems such as asthma and lung disease. However, the justices are divided on blocking the plan.
A ruling to halt the plan would be provisional, with ongoing litigation in an appeals court. A temporary loss could suspend the plan for an extended period. The Clean Air Act allows states to devise pollution control plans, subject to EPA approval. The EPA had declared that 23 states failed to produce effective plans, prompting it to issue its own.
Subsequent litigation led to seven federal appeals courts blocking the EPA’s disapproval of plans from twelve states, leaving 11 states under the federal rule. Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, along with energy companies and trade groups, challenged the federal plan directly in the United States Court of Appeals. The application from these states urged the justices to block the new rule, asserting it was a failed experiment.
The EPA argued that provisional rulings on the state plans shouldn’t impact the national rule, and blocking it would delay pollution control efforts, contradicting Congress’s directive. Industry groups opposing the plan said it would cost them billions in compliance over the next 12 months.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted the remaining states were not worsened off by the exclusion of others from the federal plan. However, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the agency had not justified the plan’s limited scope, calling its rationale a “goose egg.”
The four consolidated cases reached the court through emergency applications, which are usually addressed summarily. The rare decision to hear arguments on whether to grant a stay unsettled some justices, leading Justice Elena Kagan to call it unusual and unwelcome.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned the emergency warranting Supreme Court intervention. But Justice Kavanaugh argued the court’s regular criteria for whether to pause a regulation were sufficient to decide the issue, suggesting a close assessment on both sides was necessary.
—
Read More US Political News