Janice R. Andrews
During oral arguments on Wednesday, the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed justices expressed doubt about the EPA’s (environmental Protection Agency) rule on cross-state air pollution. Several justices questioned the EPA’s approach to the rule, especially about its impact on the participating states and the disregard for future changes resulting from current litigation, with a conservative majority of 6-3.
Under the “good neighbor” clause of the Clean Air Act, the EPA unveiled a plan in March of last year with the goal of lowering air pollution that crosses state boundaries in 23 states. Unfortunately, due to legal issues, the plan is presently only available in 11 states. Concerns were raised by Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh over the agency’s inability to provide an explanation for the consequences of this drastic cutback in state involvement as well as the lack of public involvement in this issue.
Following emergency petitions from business associations and three GOP-led states—Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia—the Supreme Court decided to take up the case. The liberal justices on the court questioned whether the Supreme Court needed to step in right away in the absence of a final decision from subordinate courts.
The case is being brought before the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in the middle of discussions about the agency’s power under the Clean Air Act and in the broader backdrop of conservative judgments against major administrative measures, particularly those by the EPA.
In order to address smog and air pollution in adjacent states, the rule requires emissions reductions from power generating and other industries across 23 states. However, doubts over the trading program’s viability and the lack of consideration for adjustments in the plan’s effectiveness if states withdraw were brought up during the arguments.
Opponents emphasized possible financial costs and questioned the program’s efficacy in its current form, while the Biden administration contended that the EPA’s framework accommodated for future state additions to or withdrawals from the scheme.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on whether to put the plan on hold while legal challenges are pending might have a big impact on state and federal regulatory authority over air quality.
This development highlights the difficulties and legal ambiguities that surround environmental laws and how they are enforced, especially when it comes to interstate pollution control initiatives.
