Supreme Court’s conservative majority blocks another Biden administration environmental rule limiting air pollution in ‚upwind states.‘<\/b>
\nThe Supreme Court on Thursday blocked an interstate air quality rule issued last year by the Biden administration to limit ozone that comes from power plants and industrial sites in the Midwest and sends polluted air drifting toward the East Coast.
The vote was 5-4, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberals in dissent.
The so-called \u201cgood neighbor\u201d rule is part of the Clean Air Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency says it ensures that sources of air pollution in \u201cupwind states\u201d must take steps to reduce it if it is \u201caffecting air quality in downwind states.\u201d
In its latest update, the EPA targeted 23 states for more stringent regulation, including California in part.
But before the rule could take effect, it was caught up in legal battle between the Republican-led states and the Democratic administration.
Twelve states, led by Texas, won rulings from U.S. appeals courts reversing the EPA\u2019s determination that its air pollution standards were inadequate.
These decisions shielded the states from the new rule.
Undeterred, the EPA pressed ahead to enforce its new \u201cgood neighbor\u201d rule in the Midwest states which had yet to win exemptions.
The Biden administration argued that a court-ordered \u201cdelay would seriously harm the downwind states that suffer from their upwind neighbors\u2019 emissions, placing the entire burden of achieving healthy air quality on those states and exposing their residents to public-health risks.\u201d
But Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia went directly to the Supreme Court, seeking an order to block the EPA\u2019s rule, at least for now.
They said the Clean Air Act gives states \u201cthe primary responsibility for assuring air quality\u201d in this country, and they urged the justices to block the \u201cEPA\u2019s power grab.\u201d They also argued that the EPA\u2019s more stringent controls would harm their industries and \u201cdestabilize their power grids\u201d by reducing the production of electricity.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said, \u201cBecause the states bear primary responsibility for developing compliance plans, EPA has no authority to question the wisdom of a state\u2019s choices of emission limitations.\u2019
The unusual legal posture of the case prompted an unusual procedural move by the Supreme Court. Usually, the justices agree to review cases after a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court have ruled on the matter.
But in this instance, the justices agreed to hear arguments and write a decision in the case of Ohio vs. EPA before any lower court had ruled on the new regulation.
California was mostly a bystander in this clean-air fight because the new EPA rule did not affect power plants in the state. It would, however, apply to industrial sites beginning in 2026.<\/p>\n