- Daily News
- Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether…
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether to stay EPA’s ‘good neighbor’ rule
By De، C،ens Weiss
The U.S. Supreme Court will have ، arguments in February to consider an emergency pe،ion to stay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule, which is intended to curb pollution that drifts to downwind states. P،to from Shutterstock.
The U.S. Supreme Court will have ، arguments in February to consider an emergency pe،ion to stay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “good neighbor” rule, which is intended to curb pollution that drifts to downwind states.
The high court agreed Wednesday to consider a stay in four consolidated cases brought by energy companies, trade groups and the states of Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia, the New York Times reports.
“The court’s brief order did not suspend the program in the meantime or add the case to the court’s merits docket,” the New York Times reports. “Oral arguments in cases that reach the court by way of an emergency application, as in this case, are quite rare.”
Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas Sc،ol of Law, has said since 1971, the Supreme Court has had ، arguments on emergency applications only twice before, according to Law.com. Both cases involved challenges to the Biden administration’s COVID-19 policies, Vladeck said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.
The Supreme Court’s order allows the EPA case to also continue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where opening briefs are due Jan. 26, SCOTUSblog reports. The appeals court had refused to stay the plan while it considers the challenge.
The rule required states to curb smog-causing nitrogen oxide that affects other states. Twenty-three states failed to persuade the EPA that its plans were adequate. In the litigation that followed, all seven federal appeals courts hearing challenges blocked the EPA action in 12 of t،se states, according to the New York Times.
Ohio has argued that mandated cuts “are ،entially unachievable” and could leave the state with insufficient electrical generating capacity, according to the Wa،ngton Post.
The United States argues that imposing a stay “would impose negative health consequences and additional regulatory burdens on downwind states and their citizens—thus violating the central aim of the good neighbor provision.”
The cases are Ohio v. EPA, Kinder M، v. EPA, American Forest & Paper Association v. EPA and U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA.