The U.S. Supreme Court made a decision to temporarily block the EPA’s “Good Neighbor Plan,” which aimed to protect downwind states from air pollution. This plan was put on hold following a 5-4 vote in favor of a group of states, companies, and trade associations who raised concerns about the plan.
Jonathan Adler, the founding director of the Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law at Case Western Reserve University, shared some insights on the court’s decision. He highlighted that the court is holding the EPA accountable for responding to comments in the rule-making process. The concern is that companies may have to comply with environmental regulations prematurely, leading to investments that the EPA did not properly require.
The lawsuit against the EPA’s plan raised issues about the legal and practical implications of substituting the federal plan for states’ individual plans. While there were arguments related to states’ rights, the court’s decision focused more narrowly on the EPA’s failure to adequately respond to significant comments during the rule-making process.
Despite being a conservative-leaning court, the ruling was considered somewhat restrained. The court did not give the EPA a complete win, but it also did not hand them a significant loss. This case, which came to the court on an emergency motion for a stay, shows a level of skepticism towards federal regulatory agencies and a willingness to intervene early in the process.
Overall, this decision may have implications for future cases related to rule-making and federal regulatory agencies that come before the court. The court’s intervention in this case suggests a cautious approach towards allowing regulatory actions to proceed without proper scrutiny.
