The Supreme Court recently issued a temporary hold on an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plan that aims to reduce air pollution that drifts across state lines. This decision is seen as a setback for the Biden administration’s environmental protection efforts, as the ruling follows other recent decisions that have limited the agency’s authority in addressing climate change and water pollution. The ruling, which was decided by a narrow 5-4 vote, suspends the EPA’s “good neighbor” plan, which requires factories and power plants in Western and Midwestern states to cut ozone pollution that affects Eastern states.
The EPA’s “good neighbor” plan initially applied to 23 states, as the emissions from factories and power plants in certain states cause smog and health issues like asthma, lung disease, and premature death in downwind states. Under the Clean Air Act, states are allowed to create their own plans to reduce pollution, subject to EPA approval. However, when the agency concluded that 23 states had failed to produce adequate plans to comply with revised ozone standards, it issued its own plan. This led to a wave of litigation, with seven federal appeals courts blocking the EPA’s disapproval of state plans and leaving 11 states subject to the federal rule.
The challenge to the federal plan was brought by three states – Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia – as well as energy companies and trade groups, who argued that the federal plan was a “failed experiment” that should be suspended. The EPA countered by stating that blocking the plan would have severe consequences and delay efforts to control pollution that contributes to unhealthy air in downwind states. The consolidated cases, including Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, were brought to the Supreme Court through emergency applications, which are typically resolved summarily. The Court’s decision to hold arguments on whether to grant a stay in this case was uncommon.
The temporary hold on the EPA’s “good neighbor” plan means that the plan will be suspended for many months, if not longer, while the case is litigated in the appeals court and potentially returns to the Supreme Court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by the court’s liberal members, dissented in the decision. The controversy over the plan highlights the ongoing challenges in balancing environmental protection with concerns about the economic impact on industries regulated by the EPA. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the Biden administration’s environmental agenda and efforts to address air pollution and its impacts on public health.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision to temporarily halt the EPA’s plan to reduce air pollution that crosses state lines is a setback for the Biden administration’s environmental protection efforts. The ruling suspends the agency’s “good neighbor” plan, which requires certain states to cut ozone pollution that affects neighboring states. The legal challenge to the plan has led to a divisive 5-4 vote and highlights the ongoing debate over the EPA’s authority in addressing environmental issues like air pollution. The case will continue to be litigated in the appeals court and could have lasting implications for environmental policy and public health.
