In a recent New York Post article, Adam Liptak wrote that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is poised to potentially block the Biden administration’s environmental protection efforts. Here’s the full story.
“Good Neighbor” Initiative
This move, according to Liptak, aligns with a pattern of recent court decisions limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority in addressing water contamination and climate change.
The focal point of argument was the administration’s “good neighbor” initiative, primarily aimed at mitigating air pollution originating from manufacturers and power plants in Western and Midwestern states that affected Eastern regions. The proposal, applicable to 23 states initially, required the reduction of ozone pollution linked to asthma, lung illness, and premature mortality.
The Discussions of the Decision
As the judges considered whether to halt the plan temporarily, discussions indicated a division along familiar lines.
A decision, expected by June, could have far-reaching consequences, given the recent trend of court decisions scaling back the EPA’s powers. Liptak shared that it was crucial to note that any decision to block the proposal would only be temporary, as an appeals court was set to continue hearing arguments before potentially returning the case to the Supreme Court.
Actions to Reduce Emissions
The debate revolved around the government’s authority to enforce the “good neighbor” initiative, instructing states to take action to reduce emissions contributing to pollution. The EPA contended that the Clean Air Act permitted states to create their own programs, subject to EPA approval.
Series of Legal Challenges
The government’s stance was rooted in its conclusion, reached in February of the previous year, that 23 states had failed to submit adequate plans to meet updated ozone requirements. Following this, the EPA formulated its strategy.
However, a series of legal challenges ensued. Liptak shared that seven federal appeals courts overturned the EPA’s decision to reject plans submitted by twelve states, leaving eleven states subject to the federal rule. Among the challengers were three states—Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia—joined by energy firms and trade associations.
The Federal Plan Was a “Failed Experiment”
They contested the federal plan in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, urging the Supreme Court to intervene after an initial denial by a divided three-judge panel.
The core argument from the challengers was that the federal plan termed a “failed experiment,” should be halted based on the provisional rulings on state plans. The EPA countered, claiming that blocking the plan would impede efforts to control pollution adversely affecting downwind states, breaking Congress’s directive that upwind states take responsibility for their emissions’ impact on downwind states.
Protect Downwind States From Pollution
Liptak shared that in the midst of legal wrangling, the practical impact of the “good neighbor” provision became a central point of contention during recent arguments.
Judith N. Vale, a lawyer supporting the plan, shared Congress’s intent to protect downwind states from pollution emitted in upwind states. She warned that a stay of the rule would undermine this goal and harm public interest by allowing ozone pollution to affect downwind states.
Questions on the Plan’s Viability
The article added that the Supreme Court’s justices grappled with the nuances of the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the impact on remaining states covered by the federal plan, suggesting that their costs wouldn’t change.
However, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh challenged the EPA’s rationale, saying that it provided no explanation for the plan’s viability given its constrained scope.
The Criticism
The industry groups opposing the federal proposal, represented by Catherine E. Stetson, argued that compliance would cost them “billions of dollars” over the next 12 months.
The Supreme Court received the consolidated cases through emergency applications, a departure from the usual summary resolution process. Justices acknowledged the unusual nature of the situation, with Justice Elena Kagan expressing reluctance about the court’s involvement based on emergency applications.
Questioning the Necessity
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoed these concerns, questioning the necessity of Supreme Court intervention at this stage. She shared that the emergency docket should not be a catch-all for every party challenging a rule while simultaneously avoiding compliance.
The Irreparable Harm on Both Sides
However, Justice Kavanaugh argued that the court’s ordinary criteria for deciding whether to put a regulation on hold were sufficient for this matter. He highlighted the irreparable harm on both sides and the strong public interest from each perspective, leaving the evaluation of the challengers’ likelihood of success on their underlying arguments.
Share Your Thoughts
So what do you think? How could the legal system strike a balance between protecting states’ rights and ensuring a coordinated, effective approach to environmental issues that transcend state boundaries?
