Summary
The Supreme Court granted applications to stay enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency's Federal Implementation Plan regulating interstate ozone emissions pending review in the D.C. Circuit and any timely petition for certiorari. The Court concluded that the applicants were likely to prevail on their claim that EPA acted arbitrarily or capriciously by failing to explain why its emissions-control measures remained cost-effective after numerous States were no longer subject to the plan.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether applicants were entitled to a stay of EPA's Good Neighbor Plan pending review of their challenge.
- Whether applicants were likely to succeed in showing that EPA acted arbitrarily or capriciously by failing to explain why the FIP's emissions-control measures remained cost-effective when many fewer States were subject to the plan.
- Whether the Clean Air Act's public-comment and reconsideration provisions required applicants to return to EPA before raising the objection in court.
Holdings
- The applicants satisfied the requirements for a stay because the balance of the stay factors ultimately turned on their likelihood of success on the merits, and they were likely to prevail on their arbitrary-or-capricious challenge.
- Applicants were likely to succeed in showing that EPA's final FIP was arbitrary or capricious because EPA did not reasonably explain why emissions-control measures calculated on the assumption that all covered States would participate would continue to maximize cost-effective downwind ozone improvements after many States dropped out.
- The applicants were not required to return to EPA for reconsideration before raising the objection because EPA had notice of the substance of the concern during the comment period and had an opportunity to address it.
- The Court declined to consider arguments that the government had forfeited, including arguments that the alleged failure to explain was harmless or that the methodology did not depend on the number of participating States.
Key quotations
“Specifically, in this litigation, we ask (1) whether the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) whether it will suffer irreparable injury without a stay, (3) whether the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings, and (4) where the public interest lies.” (603 U.S. at 291)
“An agency action qualifies as "arbitrary" or "capricious" if it is not "reasonable and reasonably explained."” (603 U.S. at 292)
“As a result, the applicants are likely to prevail on their argument that EPA's final rule was not "reasonably explained," Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S., at 423, that the agency failed to supply "a satisfactory explanation for its action[,]" State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S., at 43, and that it instead ignored "an important aspect of the problem" before it, ibid.” (603 U.S. at 293-294)
“If an "objection [is] raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment" but not reasonably addressed in the final rule, the Act permits an immediate challenge.” (603 U.S. at 298)
Factual background
EPA revised the national ambient air-quality standard for ozone in 2015, prompting States to submit new State Implementation Plans addressing interstate ozone transport. EPA proposed to disapprove more than 20 SIPs and proposed a single Federal Implementation Plan designed around the assumption that all covered States would participate and that uniform emissions-control measures would maximize cost-effective downwind air-quality improvements. Courts later stayed 12 SIP disapprovals, leaving EPA unable to apply the FIP to those States, but EPA continued enforcing the same plan against the remaining applicants without explaining whether the change in participating States affected the cost-effectiveness analysis.
Procedural history
EPA issued a Federal Implementation Plan covering multiple States after proposing to disapprove their State Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act's Good Neighbor Provision. Litigation in other courts stayed 12 of the SIP disapprovals, causing EPA's FIP to apply to substantially fewer States than originally contemplated. Applicants challenged the remaining FIP in the D.C. Circuit and sought a stay; after the D.C. Circuit denied relief, the Supreme Court granted the applications and stayed enforcement pending review.
Remand instructions
Enforcement of EPA's rule against the applicants was stayed pending disposition of their petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit and any timely petition for writ of certiorari. If certiorari is denied, the stay terminates automatically; if certiorari is granted, it terminates when the Court's judgment is sent down.