Supreme Court's Air Pollution Legacy

The United States Supreme Court has been involved in air pollution regulations since 2016, when it blocked an Obama-era rule that would have required power plants to transition to cleaner energy sources. Since then, the Court has made several decisions that have impacted the ability of federal agencies to regulate air pollution and address climate change. For example, in 2024, the Court stopped the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Good Neighbor Plan, which would have required heavy-polluting industries to reduce emissions contributing to smog in other states. The Court has also overruled a legal doctrine that gave deference to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous terms in statutes, creating uncertainty for regulatory agencies. These decisions have made it more difficult for agencies to issue regulations to protect public health and address climate change. However, attorneys and activists continue to defend clean air rules and challenge decisions that could weaken pollution controls.

The Supreme Court's involvement in the Clean Power Plan

The US Supreme Court's involvement with the Clean Power Plan (CPP) dates back to 2016, when a 5-4 majority decision blocked an Obama-era rule that aimed to shift coal and gas power plants to cleaner energy sources. This was the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Power Plan, which would have come into force in 2022 and required the industry to cut carbon pollution by a third by 2030.

In 2021, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the EPA's authority to regulate power plant emissions. This resulted in the 2022 West Virginia v. EPA case, where the Supreme Court held that the EPA lacked the statutory authority to issue the CPP. The Court's opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, stated that "generation shifting" exceeded the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act as it was not explicitly authorised by Congress. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, which it argued applied in "extraordinary cases" where an agency asserts a broad and vague regulatory power.

Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the Clean Air Act's reference to the "best system" of emission reduction was a broad Congressional authorization for the EPA to act. The Supreme Court's decision has been criticised for potentially hindering efforts to tackle climate change and protect public health. The Court has also been accused of overreaching and creating regulatory uncertainty.

Despite the setback, the EPA and environmental advocates continue to defend emission limits and advocate for climate and clean air rules. The Supreme Court's involvement in the CPP highlights the increasing role of the judiciary in shaping climate policy and the potential impact of judicial interpretations on environmental regulations.

The impact of the Supreme Court's decisions on the EPA

The US Supreme Court's decisions have had a significant impact on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its efforts to address air pollution and climate change. The Court has been increasingly involved in environmental regulations since 2016, when it blocked the EPA's Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era rule aimed at reducing carbon pollution from coal and gas power plants. This set a precedent for further interventions by the Court in environmental matters.

In 2021, as the EPA Administrator Michael Regan prepared to introduce new rules on power plant emissions, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the EPA's authority. This intervention, along with other Supreme Court decisions, has created a legal landscape that makes it more difficult for agencies like the EPA to carry out their duties in tackling air pollution and climate change. The Supreme Court has been accused of a "'power grab," overruling the Chevron doctrine, which previously allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous terms in statutes, creating regulatory uniformity in areas like pollution control and public health protection.

The Supreme Court's recent decisions have direct implications for the EPA's ability to implement regulations. For example, the Court's ruling in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System exposed agency regulations to near-endless litigation, potentially delaying or hindering the implementation of environmental protections. The reversal of Chevron could also give future EPAs more leeway in interpreting laws like the Clean Air Act, which environmentalists would likely challenge in court.

Despite these challenges, the EPA and its supporters continue to defend emission limits and advocate for climate and clean air rules. They argue that the Supreme Court's decisions do not change the EPA's legal obligations to address climate pollution under the Clean Air Act. Additionally, market forces have played a role in driving the industry to slash emissions faster than the EPA's original targets.

The full extent of the impact of the Supreme Court's decisions on the EPA remains to be seen. However, there are concerns that judges hostile to environmental protections may feel emboldened to strike down pollution controls, and agencies may become hesitant to issue the necessary regulations to address climate change. The Supreme Court's role in deciding the pace and aggressiveness of the nation's response to this global challenge is significant, and its decisions will continue to shape the legal framework within which the EPA operates.

The Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Clean Air Act

The US Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting the Clean Air Act and its associated regulations. The Court's involvement dates back to 2016, when it blocked an Obama-era rule that aimed to shift coal and gas power plants towards cleaner energy sources. This intervention set a precedent for the Court's influence on energy policy and air pollution regulation.

In 2021, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to regulate power plant emissions. This case, West Virginia v. EPA, was a significant development as it questioned the EPA's ability to address carbon pollution from power plants. The Supreme Court's decision in this case is expected to have a substantial impact on the EPA's regulatory powers.

The Supreme Court has also weighed in on the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act. In a 6-2 decision, the Court ruled that the EPA was within its authority and equitable in interpreting ambiguous text in the Clean Air Act. This ruling validated the EPA's approach to crafting regulations and resolving technically complex issues. However, the Court's interpretation of the Clean Air Act has not always aligned with that of the EPA.

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court held that defendants in certain civil cases were entitled to a jury trial, going against longstanding practices of agency enforcement. This decision has potential implications for the EPA's ability to enforce its regulations and address air pollution. Additionally, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which had allowed agencies to interpret ambiguous terms in statutes. This reversal created regulatory uncertainty and left it up to the courts to determine the weight of agency interpretations.

The Supreme Court's recent decisions have made it more difficult for federal agencies to issue regulations necessary to mitigate climate change and protect public health. Agencies now face increased litigation and the challenge of developing rigorous arguments to support their actions. However, despite these hurdles, the EPA still retains clear authority under the Clean Air Act to tackle air pollution, and activists continue to advocate for stronger climate and clean air rules.

The Court's intervention in cases regarding air pollution across state borders

The US Supreme Court has been involved in cases regarding air pollution since at least 2016, when it blocked an Obama-era rule that would have required power plants to shift to cleaner energy sources. The Court's intervention in cases concerning air pollution across state borders is particularly notable.

One such case is the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which aimed to protect downwind states from harmful air pollution emitted by distant power plants and then carried across state borders. The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of this rule, allowing the EPA to implement it and reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution from coal-fired power plants in 28 eastern states. This ruling was significant as it helped to address the dangerous levels of pollution in downwind states caused by emissions drifting across state lines.

Another set of cases, Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067) and PacifiCorp v. EPA (23-1068), involve challenges to the EPA's disapproval of state air quality plans that failed to control pollution travelling across borders and contributing to smog in downwind states. The Supreme Court temporarily stayed these cases in June 2023, pending full consideration of the merits. These cases highlight the ongoing debate over which court should hear challenges to the nation's clean air laws and the efforts by large emitters to avoid updating pollution controls.

The Supreme Court's involvement in these cases has had a significant impact on air pollution regulations across state borders. While some celebrate the Court's decisions as a win for environmental protection, others argue that the Court's intervention may make it more difficult for agencies like the EPA to address climate pollution and implement much-needed regulations. The Court's rulings have also exposed well-settled agency regulations to near-endless litigation, creating regulatory uncertainty and potentially hindering progress in tackling climate change.

Overall, the US Supreme Court's intervention in cases regarding air pollution across state borders has had mixed reactions. While some applaud the Court for protecting downwind states from harmful pollution, others worry that the Court's decisions may impede the progress made by federal agencies and market forces in addressing climate change and improving air quality.

The use of emergency stays by the Supreme Court to block air pollution regulations

The United States Supreme Court has played a significant role in shaping air pollution regulations, and its interventions have had both positive and negative impacts on environmental progress. One area where the Supreme Court has been active is in issuing emergency stays, which can temporarily block the implementation of air pollution regulations.

The Supreme Court's use of emergency stays has been a concern for environmental advocates. The Court has traditionally used this power sparingly, reserving it for cases where there is an immediate risk of irreparable harm, such as in death penalty cases. However, in recent years, the Court has increasingly granted emergency stays in cases involving financial harm from regulatory compliance, including cases related to air pollution regulations. This shift has allowed stakeholders to block the implementation of air pollution laws while their cases are still being decided in lower courts.

One example of the Supreme Court's use of emergency stays in air pollution cases is the 2022 West Virginia v. EPA case. In this case, the Court agreed to hear a challenge to the EPA's authority to regulate power plant emissions, which had been established under the Clean Power Plan during the Obama administration. By issuing an emergency stay, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the implementation of the Clean Power Plan while the case was being litigated. This action delayed the reduction of carbon pollution from power plants, which was originally targeted to cut emissions by a third by 2030.

Another consequence of the Supreme Court's emergency stays is the potential impact on agency decision-making. With the threat of legal challenges and stays, agencies may become hesitant to issue ambitious regulations to address climate change and air pollution. This could lead to regulatory uncertainty and inaction, making it more difficult to tackle the urgent challenges posed by climate change.

Despite the concerns, it is important to note that the Supreme Court's emergency stays do not eliminate the legal obligations of federal agencies to address air pollution. Agencies, such as the EPA, still have the responsibility to fulfil their mandates, even if the Supreme Court's decisions make it more challenging for them to carry out their duties effectively. Furthermore, environmental advocates and attorneys remain committed to defending and strengthening air pollution regulations, ensuring that progress continues to be made despite the legal hurdles.

Frequently asked questions