Amy Howe

Oct 4 2024

Supreme Court declines to block EPA methane, mercury rules

The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a request from Republican-led states and industry groups to block a rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that imposes more stringent standards on emissions of hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants. At the same time, the justices turned down a similar request from Oklahoma and industry groups to block an EPA rule that seeks to regulate emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from crude-oil and natural gas facilities.

Friday’s orders mean that both rules will remain in effect while challenges to them move forward in a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.

The orders leaving the EPA rules in place come three months after the Supreme Court put another EPA rule, intended to reduce air pollution that affects air quality in “downwind” states, on hold while challenges to it continue in the lower courts.

The EPA issued the first rule as part of the “Hazardous Air Pollutants” program established by the Clean Air Act, which targets pollutants – such as mercury, arsenic, and nickel – that can be toxic for humans.

The challengers – which include 23 Republican-led states, power plants, mining companies, and industry groups – went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking review of the rule. They also asked the court of appeals to put the rule on hold while the litigation went forward, but the D.C. Circuit rejected that request. The challengers then came to the Supreme Court in August, filing seven separate applications to stay the rule while the D.C. Circuit’s review continued.

The challengers complained that the new rule will impose billions of dollars in costs on power plants without providing any real public health benefits. Instead, the challengers suggested, the rule is part of a broader plan to (as the states, led by North Dakota contended) “force a nationwide transition away from coal for putative climate change reasons – pursuing a national policy choice this Court has expressly held the agency lacks authority to make.”

The EPA published the methane rule in March. Here too Oklahoma and the industry groups went first to the D.C. Circuit, seeking to challenge the rule and to have that court put it on hold while the litigation continued. The D.C. Circuit denied the request for a stay in July, prompting the challengers to come to the Supreme Court in August.

In brief unsigned orders on Friday, the justices turned down both sets of requests to put the rules on hold. The justices did not provide any explanation for their decisions, and there were no recorded dissents.

The court has not yet acted on a third set of requests to stay a different EPA rule, aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide by power plants. Those requests were filed beginning in late July and have been fully briefed for over a month.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog. 

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Supreme Court issues two rulings specifying where challenges to EPA actions on clean air must be filed
  • Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on certain medical treatments for transgender minors
  • Businesses challenge Trump’s tariffs before Supreme Court
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies