Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
 | |
| Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency | |
| Term: 2023 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: February 21, 2024 Decided: June 27, 2024 | |
| Outcome | |
| Application for stay granted | |
| Vote | |
| 5-4 | |
| Majority | |
| Neil Gorsuch • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Brett Kavanaugh | |
| Dissenting | |
| Amy Coney Barrett • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Ketanji Brown Jackson | |
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 on June 27, 2024, challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Good Neighbor Plan—a rule aiming to reduce air pollution from plants and other industrial facilities in 23 states. The Supreme Court granted the states’ application for stay to temporarily block the EPA’s rule pending review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. It was consolidated with Kinder Morgan v. Environmental Protection Agency, American Forest & Paper Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, and United States Steel Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency.[1]
The cases came on an emergency application for stay of administrative action to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Why it matters: The court’s decision in the case did not clarify the reasonableness of the EPA’s Good Neighbor Plan rule, however, the court granted the states’ application for stay which temporarily blocks the rule pending review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency:
- June 27, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court granted application for stay.
- February 21, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- December 20, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- October 13, 2023: The state of Ohio appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- September 25, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Utah's motion to stay.
The following timeline details key events in Kinder Morgan v. Environmental Protection Agency:
- June 27, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court granted application for stay.
- February 21, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- December 20, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- October 13, 2023: Kinder Morgan, Inc.; Enbridge (U.S.) Inc.; Transcanada Pipeline USA LTD.; Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; and American Petroleum Institute, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- September 25, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Kinder Morgan's motion to stay.
The following timeline details key events in United States Steel Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency:
- June 27, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court granted application for stay.
- February 21, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- December 20, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases.
- October 26, 2023: United States Steel Corporation appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- September 25, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Utah's motion to stay.
The following timeline details key events in American Forest & Paper Association v. Environmental Protection Agency:
- June 27, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court granted application for stay.
- February 21, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- December 20, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- October 13, 2023: The American Forest & Paper Association, et al. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- September 25, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied American Forest & Paper Association, Midwest Ozone Group, America's Power, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-Operative, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, Portland Cement Association, Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., and the National Mining Association's motion to stay.
Background
| Administrative State |
|---|
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
| • Judicial deference • Nondelegation • Executive control • Procedural rights • Agency dynamics |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia |
The consolidated cases—Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, Kinder Morgan v. Environmental Protection Agency, United States Steel Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, and American Forest & Paper Association v. Environmental Protection Agency—came to the Court on an emergency appeal. The petitioners, collectively referred to as "Ohio", filed an application for an emergency stay of administrative action against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with SCOTUS in order to pause the EPA's Clean Air Act's Good Neighbor Provision, a rule enacted in order to reduce air pollution from plants and other industrial facilities in 23 states.[4][5]
The EPA's website defines the Good Neighbor Provision as follows:[6]
| “ | The Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" provision requires EPA and states to address interstate transport of air pollution that affects downwind states' ability to attain and maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Specifically, Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires each state in its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of a NAAQS, or interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS, in a downwind state. The Act requires EPA to backstop state actions by promulgating Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) in the event that a state fails to submit or EPA disapproves good neighbor SIPs.[7] | ” |
Ohio contends that the rule would put undue pressure on the U.S. electrical grid, and is arbitrary and capricious, meaning that it is unreasonable and without regard to facts or law. The EPA and other states in favor of the rule contend that the Good Neighbor Provision provides important public benefits that, if halted, would cause harmful delays in improving unhealthy air quality in downwind states. The EPA argued that Ohio has not demonstrated any harms that would arise if the plan remained in effect while the legal proceedings continue.[4][5][8]
In response to the emergency appeal, SCOTUS accepted the case to hear oral argument in February 2024 but did not put the EPA plan on hold while proceedings continue in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[8]
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[9]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[10]
Outcome
The court ruled 5-4 to grant the states’ application for stay of the EPA’s rule pending review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.[1]
Opinion
Opinion of the court
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court, which granted stay to the applicants based “on the merits and the question who is likely to prevail at the end of the litigation.” Gorsuch argued:[11]
| “ |
If anything, we see one reason for caution after another. Start with the fact the dissent itself expresses little confidence in its own theories, contending no more than it ‘appear[s]’ EPA’s methodology did not depend on the number of covered States. Post, at 14 (emphasis added). Add to that the fact that, at oral argument, even the government refused to say with certainty that EPA would have reached the same conclusions regardless of which States were included in the FIP. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 59. Combine all that with the further fact that, in developing the FIP, EPA said it used the ‘same regulatory framework’ this Court described in EME Homer City Generation, L. P. v. EPA, 572 U.S. 489. E.g., EPA Response 7–8. And, at least as the Court described that framework, state-level analyses play a significant role in EPA’s work. Finally, observe that, while the Act seems to anticipate, as the dissent suggests, that the agency’s ‘procedural determinations’ may be subject to harmless-error review, §7607(d)(8), the Act also seems to treat separately challenges to agency ‘actions’ like the FIP before us, authorizing courts to ‘reverse any . . . action,’ found to be ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious,’ §7607(d)(9)(A) (emphasis added). With so many reasons for caution, we think sticking to our normal course of declining to consider forfeited arguments the right course here.[7] |
” |
Dissenting opinion
Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that the conditions for relief were not met and posited that the court should have further considered the merits of the case:[11]
| “ |
The Court today enjoins the enforcement of a major Environmental Protection Agency rule based on an underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits. In so doing, the Court grants emergency relief in a fact- intensive and highly technical case without fully engaging with both the relevant law and the voluminous record. While the Court suggests that the EPA failed to explain itself sufficiently in response to comments, this theory must surmount sizable procedural obstacles and contrary record evidence. Applicants therefore cannot satisfy the stringent conditions for relief in this posture.[7] |
” |
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
Commentary about the case
The following sections provide a selection of responses to the Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency hearings and decision.
Pre-decision commentary
Jeevna Sheth, Chris Martinez, and Devon Ombres of the Center for American Progress wrote an article about what they viewed as potential implications of Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, arguing, “The EPA has long held the statutory authority to regulate air pollution nationwide. The challenge in Ohio v. EPA asserting that the agency does not have the authority to regulate polluting emissions that cross state lines would be a devastating reversal of the authorities that Congress has explicitly granted it.”[12]
Environmental law expert Richard Lazarus spoke in an interview for Harvard Law Today about the arguments supporting and opposing the case. Lazarus stated, “One, [the plaintiffs] point out that 12 of the EPA-imposed plans have already been stayed. The whole purpose, they contend, was to deal with the emissions in all 23 upwind states. Because of the stays, it will only apply to 11 states. And in at least 12 cases, circuit courts have suggested that the challengers are likely to win the litigation on the merits. So, they say, ‘the whole thing doesn’t make sense anymore — it’s a mess, it’s chaos.’ The second thing the plaintiffs say is that implementing the plan while it is still being litigated will cause them a lot of injury.”[13]
Post-decision commentary
Hayden Hashimoto, an attorney at the Clean Air Task Force, argued in a statement to The Verge that the EPA has the legal authority to implement the Good Neighbor rule: “The Supreme Court today acted in haste, completely disregarding the public health benefits for communities that are impacted by smog from highly polluting upwind states. … While this is a significant setback, we continue to believe EPA is on firm legal and factual ground in implementing the good neighbor provision and are optimistic that the rule will ultimately be upheld by the courts.”[14]
Sam Sankar, senior vice president of the nonprofit Earthjustice, released a statement against the court’s decision arguing, “The Court’s opinion shows that the Justices are just second-guessing EPA’s approach to carrying out its duty under the Clean Air Act to reduce smog pollution. The Court’s order puts thousands of lives at risk, forces downwind states to regulate their industries more tightly, and tells big polluters that it’s open season on our environmental laws.”[15]
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) issued a statement in support of the Supreme Court’s decision stating, “The country’s power grid is already stressed as it is, and now this administration is attempting to add more regulation that’s going to stress the grid even more. … This decision by the Supreme Court is correct but the E.P.A. will keep trying to legislate and bypass Congress’s authority,” according to The New York Times.[16]
The American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a statement of support following SCOTUS’ decision arguing, “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. The Court’s decision prevents the risk of electric power outages and crippling delays to industrial supply chains for now. Still more is needed from Washington to ensure long-term energy reliability for American consumers.”[17]
October term 2023-2024
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[18]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Kinder Morgan v. Environmental Protection Agency (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Kinder Morgan v. Environmental Protection Agency
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - United States Steel Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for United States Steel Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - American Forest & Paper Association v. Environmental Protection Agency (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for American Forest & Paper Association v. Environmental Protection Agency
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Good Neighbor Provision
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 SCOTUSblog, "Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency," accessed June 27, 2024
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "ORDER LIST: 601 U.S.," accessed December 21, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 SCOTUSblog, "Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency," accessed February 27, 2024
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency STATE APPLICANTS’ EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION," filed October 13, 2023
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 SCOTUSblog, "Court to hear argument in appeals to halt “Good Neighbor” ozone regulation," February 20, 2024
- ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "Cross-State Air Pollution - The "Good Neighbor" Provision," accessed February 27, 2024
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 SCOTUSblog, "February oral argument scheduled for “good neighbor” pollution rule challenges," December 20, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued February 21, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued February 21, 2024
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Justia, "Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, 603 U.S. _ (2024)," accessed June 27, 2024
- ↑ CAP20, "Ohio v. EPA Threatens the EPA's Ability to Regulate AIr Pollution Nationwide," February 13, 2024
- ↑ Harvard Law Today, "Like a Good Neighbor, the Supreme Court is there," February 13, 2024
- ↑ The Verge, "SCOTUS pauses EPA plan to keep smog from drifting across state lines," June 27, 2024
- ↑ Earthjustice, "Supreme Court Blocks Life-Saving Federal Air Pollution Plan," June 27, 2024
- ↑ The New York Times, "Supreme Court Blocks Biden Plan on Air Pollution," June 27, 2024
- ↑ American Petroleum Institute, "API Applauds Supreme Court Stay of EPA Good Neighbor Rule," June 27, 2024
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||