The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears skeptical of the federal government’s argument that the Environmental Protection Agency should be allowed to continue enforcing its anti-air-pollution rule in 11 states
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed skeptical Wednesday as a government lawyer argued that the Environmental Protection Agency should be allowed to continue enforcing its anti-air-pollution “good neighbor” rule in 11 states while separate legal challenges continue around the country.
The rule is intended to restrict smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution.
Three energy-producing states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia — challenged the rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective. The rule is on hold in a dozen states because of the court challenges.
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years. The justices have restricted EPA’s authority to fight air and water pollution — including a landmark 2022 ruling that limited EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. The court also shot down a vaccine mandate and blocked President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program.
The court is currently weighing whether to overturn its 40-year-old Chevron decision, which has been the basis for upholding a wide range of regulations on public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.
A lawyer for the EPA said the “good neighbor” rule was important to protect downwind states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states.
