Supreme Court refuses to interfere in EPA litigation, for now
The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a case challenging Biden-era climate policy targeting the environmental impact of power plants. In its decision, the Court allowed the policies to remain in effect. The result was not unanimous, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
Eadyn Thompson
The court’s order is a boost for the Biden administration’s efforts to tackle climate change. A coalition of Republican-run states and businesses had challenged the rule, citing the financial cost of compliance. Wednesday’s order comes weeks after the court refused to block new anti-pollution rules that impose tougher standards on mercury emissions from coal-fired plants and that regulate methane emissions from crude-oil and natural gas facilities.
Unlike the court’s refusal to intervene in those anti-pollution rules, Wednesday’s decision was not unanimous. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the order, saying that he would have paused the regulations while the case played out. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote separately, saying that while the plaintiffs “are unlikely to suffer irreparable harm before the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit decides the merits” they believe that challengers did show a strong likelihood of success in some of their challenges to the rule. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch indicated that they may be sympathetic to the case were it to be brought after the D.C. Circuit’s ruling.
These recent decisions not to intervene break from the Court’s previous handling of EPA litigation. Last summer, the court temporarily blocked the EPA's "Good Neighbor Plan" in a 5-4 vote, ruling that the emissions-reductions standards set by the plan were likely to cause "irreparable harm" to almost half the states unless the court halted the rule pending further review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
