The Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily put on hold a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plan to curb air pollution spreading across state borders, dealing another blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to protect the environment.
The ruling follows recent decisions limiting the agency’s powers to combat climate change and water pollution.
The ruling was provisional and challenges to the plan will continue to be heard in an appeals court and could then be sent back to the Supreme Court. But even the temporary loss to the administration will sideline the plan for many months and perhaps even longer.
The vote was 5 to 4. Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the court’s three liberal members dissented.
The decision affected the government’s “Good Neighbors” plan, which initially applied to 23 states. Under the proposal, factories and power plants in Western and Midwestern states would have to reduce ozone pollution flowing into Eastern states. The emissions cause smog and are linked to asthma, lung disease and premature death.
The Clean Air Act allows states to develop their own plans, subject to EPA approval. In February 2023, the agency concluded that 23 states had not prepared adequate plans to comply with their revised ozone standards. The agency then published its own plan.
A wave of litigation followed, and seven federal appeals courts blocked the EPA’s rejection of plans submitted by a dozen states, leaving 11 states subject to federal regulation.
Three states—Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia, as well as energy companies and trade groups—challenged the federal plan directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. When a divided three-judge panel of that court refused to suspend the rule while the litigation continued, the challengers asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The three states’ motion asked the justices to block the new rule in light of appeals court rulings, arguing that “the federal plan is already a failed experiment” and “merely a shell of its original self.”
The EPA responded that the preliminary decisions on the state plans should not affect the national regulation and that blocking them would have serious consequences.
“It would delay efforts to control pollution that contributes to unhealthy air in downwind states, contradicting Congress’ explicit instruction that sources in upwind states must take responsibility for their contribution to emissions levels in downwind states “, says the agency’s statement.
The four consolidated cases, including Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23A349, came to the court through emergency motions, which are typically disposed of on a summary basis. The court’s decision to hear arguments in such a setting – whether to grant a stay – was rare.
Source link
2024-06-27 16:58:37
www.nytimes.com