Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Biden EPA Power Plant Rule

This spring, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Ohio v. EPA, placing a stay on an Environmental Protection Agency rule regarding interstate air pollution. This action, although uncommon, is not unprecedented. In 2016, the Court also stayed the implementation of the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan in a similar 5-4 vote.

This decision prompted industrial groups and conservative states to file multiple applications seeking stays of other EPA regulations, given the Court’s demonstrated willingness to halt major air pollution rules. However, none of these recent applications have been successful.

During the Court’s long conference, applications for stays of EPA rules on hazardous air pollutants and methane emissions were denied. Additionally, the Court rejected applications seeking a stay of the Biden Administration’s rules on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, with only Justice Thomas dissenting. Justice Alito did not participate in the decision.

While some may find the Court’s actions surprising, the reasons for granting stays in previous cases, such as the Clean Power Plan and interstate air pollution rule, did not apply to these recent applications.

The Court’s decision to stay the Clean Power Plan was influenced by the EPA’s disregard for a previous ruling in Michigan v. EPA, where the agency’s regulations on mercury emissions were deemed arbitrary and capricious. The interstate air pollution rule also raised concerns about irreversible capital investments required for compliance during ongoing litigation.

However, the Court found that the recent stay applications did not present the same level of risk or urgency as the previous cases. The EPA’s attention to providing reasonable compliance deadlines and the expedited legal challenges by the D.C. Circuit Court contributed to the denial of these stay requests.

Justice Kavanaugh, in a brief opinion, noted the strong likelihood of success in challenging the EPA’s rule but emphasized that applicants were unlikely to suffer irreparable harm before the D.C. Circuit’s decision.

Overall, the Court seems to be establishing a standard for evaluating stay requests for major regulations, considering factors such as the aggressiveness of agency authority and compliance schedules. While extraordinary relief may be offered in exceptional cases, it is not a blanket approval for halting major environmental rules.