A New Era for Environmental Law? Supreme Court Decisions on EPA Regulations
By: Srija Kasturi
On October 17, 2024, the Supreme Court approved the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) rule to lower carbon emissions produced by power plants. As part of the Biden Administration’s “net emissions by 2050” plan, the regulation aims to reduce emissions from coal-fired plants while promoting cleaner energy. The EPA asserts that this regulation will prevent emissions equivalent to those of 328 million gasoline cars annually.
After its enactment in April, roughly two dozen states challenged the regulation out of concerns for the economic impact. They argued that it would lead to higher electricity prices and significant job losses in the coal industry, with some claiming it was an overreach of federal authority. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said, “We will continue to fight through the merits phase and prove this rule strips the states of important discretion while forcing plants to use technologies that don’t work in the real world.” Several states echoed his concerns and sought immediate relief. In an emergency hearing, the Supreme Court decided to uphold this regulation. Justice Clarence Thomas stated he would have temporarily blocked the EPA from enforcing this regulation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch sympathized with the lower courts but ultimately agreed with the court's decision. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the deliberation, possibly due to owning stock in one of the companies involved in the case.
The republican-majority court’s decision to uphold two other EPA regulations this month surprised many, raising questions about the justices’ evolving stance on environmental oversight and the future of federal regulatory power. Harvard’s environmental law professor, Richard Lazarus, believes that the court’s decision on the EPA’s carbon regulation “may well be a major pivot point.” Lazarus also believes that Justice Amy Coney Barett has growing influence in the court. Although a republican, Justice Barrett dissented when the court blocked an EPA rule on air pollution in June, instead siding with liberal justices. Lazarus writes, “Her dissent in July appears now to be commanding a majority view.” While it's too early to fully gauge the impact, these developments suggest potential shifts in the Court’s approach to environmental law.
Image Source:
https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2024/02/epa-prepares-substantial-hiring-push-2024/394045/
Sources:
Liptak, A. (2024, October 16). Supreme Court hears challenge to EPA’s authority on emissions rules. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/us/supreme-court-epa-emissions.html
CBS News. (2024, October 16). Supreme Court considers EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions rule for coal power plants. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-epa-greenhouse-gas-emissions-coal-power-plants/
Howe, A. (2024, October 16). Supreme Court allows EPA emissions rule to stand while litigation continues. SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/supreme-court-allows-epa-emissions-rule-to-stand-while-litigation-continues/
Davenport, C. (2024, October 18). Supreme Court and environmental cases: The growing impact of the shadow docket. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/18/climate/supreme-court-shadow-docket-environment.html