West Virginia v. EPA
The Supreme Court declined to pause an EPA rule challenged by West Virginia and a coalition of states and energy companies, finding that the challengers face no urgent harm because they do not have to start complying until June 2025.
The order is temporary — once the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the merits, the losing side can return to the Supreme Court for emergency relief if the circumstances warrant it.
How it got here: Multiple states and industry groups filed emergency stay applications challenging an EPA rule; the Chief Justice referred them to the full Court, which denied them on October 16, 2024.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A group of states led by West Virginia, along with electric utilities, mining companies, and industry organizations, asked the Supreme Court to pause an Environmental Protection Agency rule while they fought it in court. The challengers argued the rule was unlawful and that being forced to prepare for compliance would cause serious harm — but the June 2025 deadline for compliance work had not yet arrived.
The question before the Court
Should states and energy companies be allowed to pause an EPA rule they're challenging in court before a federal appeals court has decided whether the rule is legal?
The Court's answer
No — at least not yet. The Court declined to pause the EPA rule, but not because the challengers' legal arguments were dismissed as weak. Justice Kavanaugh, in a statement joined by Justice Gorsuch, explained that the challengers had actually shown a strong likelihood of winning on the merits of at least some of their claims. However, getting a stay also requires showing that serious, immediate harm will result from waiting — and since compliance work does not need to begin until June 2025, no such urgent harm exists before the D.C. Circuit finishes its review.
Justice Kavanaugh noted that the D.C. Circuit is moving quickly and should resolve the case within its current term. Once it does, whichever side loses can return to the Supreme Court to seek emergency relief if the situation then warrants it.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Electric utilities, coal and mining companies, and the states that challenged the EPA rule must continue preparing for the June 2025 compliance deadline. The D.C. Circuit will be the first court to decide whether the rule itself is lawful, and the Supreme Court signaled it could still step in later if necessary.
What changes now
The EPA rule remains in effect and the challengers must continue preparing for the June 2025 compliance deadline. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether the rule is lawful, and it is expected to do so within its current term. After that ruling, the losing side may seek emergency relief or full review from the Supreme Court. This order is not a decision on the rule's legality.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether the EPA rule is lawful. It only declines to pause the rule while the D.C. Circuit considers the merits. Justice Kavanaugh explicitly noted the challengers may still have strong legal arguments — that question remains entirely open.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Kavanaugh
Justice Kavanaugh agreed with denying the stays but wrote separately to explain his reasoning. He stated that the challengers had shown a strong likelihood of winning on the merits of at least some of their claims — but that the irreparable-harm requirement was not met because compliance work need not begin until June 2025. He noted the D.C. Circuit is moving quickly and should decide the case this term, after which parties can seek Supreme Court relief if needed.
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas would have granted the emergency stays, pausing the EPA rule while the legal challenges proceed. He provided no written explanation for his position.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- To win an emergency stay — a pause on a rule while a legal challenge plays out — a party must satisfy several factors: a strong likelihood of winning the underlying case, a risk of serious and irreparable harm without the pause, limited harm to the other side if the pause is granted, and a public interest in the pause.
- Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged that the challengers cleared the first hurdle: in his view they showed a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to at least some of their claims against the EPA rule.
- The stay was denied, however, because the challengers could not show irreparable harm — harm so serious and imminent that waiting for the normal appeals process would be unacceptable. Since companies do not need to begin compliance work until June 2025, any real burden remains months away.
- The D.C. Circuit is already hearing the case and is expected to decide it within its current term, well before the compliance deadline arrives. Given that timeline, allowing the ordinary appeals process to play out poses no unacceptable risk to the challengers.
- Justice Kavanaugh noted that after the D.C. Circuit issues its decision, the side that loses can, if circumstances then justify it, seek appropriate relief from the Supreme Court — either while a petition asking the Court to hear the case is pending, or if the Court agrees to hear it.