Supreme Court appears skeptical of EPA interstate air pollution rule

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interstate air pollution rules, with members of the court’s liberal minority expressing skepticism about the appropriateness of hearing the case, but conservative The majority appears open to blocking this rule.

The “good neighbor” rule, which regulates downwind air pollution caused by upwind states, is the subject of lawsuits by industry groups and the states of Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh is skeptical of the EPA’s rationale for the rule’s overall validity, even though lower courts have already blocked it in 12 of the 23 states covered. It seems like. He said the agency is proposing that the remaining states “pretend nothing happened and just move on.”

The Clean Air Act allows states to develop their own interstate pollution plans, but it also allows the EPA to intervene with state plans if it deems them inadequate. The state plaintiffs claim they were not given sufficient time to comply.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said it seemed “highly unusual” for the plaintiffs to request emergency relief before a verdict had been decided in the District of Columbia Circuit Court. In response, Ohio Acting Attorney General Mathura Sridharan argued that states are moving at “breakneck speed” to prevent imminent power shortages as a result of the rule.

Jackson noted that the rule won’t take effect until 2026, suggesting that’s enough time to ask lower courts to expedite the request. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also suggested that the litigants were “in a hurry.”[ing] It was passed down to us as an incomplete record. ”

“If all the lawsuits that states are bringing are going to fail, the idea that you can come here and demand emergency relief just because a state is making a fuss doesn’t seem like the right answer to me. ” said Judge Elena. Kagan added.

The court’s six conservative justices are broadly open to curbing the powers of federal agencies, and during oral arguments in January, they spoke about the so-called Chevron doctrine, which gives federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting federal law. He was showing his readiness to defeat the. In another decision, EPA v. West Virginia, the court ruled against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which regulates the output of power plants.

Environmental groups expressed regret Wednesday at the prospect of the court blocking the Good Neighbor Rule.

“In the past two years alone, the Supreme Court’s far-right majority has rolled back protections for waterways and limited EPA’s tools to combat environmental pollution,” Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy for the League of Conservation Voters, said in a statement. said. “Our communities, our planet, and our democracy deserve better. The Supreme Court must step out of the way and allow EPA’s Good Neighbor Rule to move forward.”