Louisiana v. American Rivers
The Court put on hold a lower court ruling that had struck down an EPA rule limiting how states can review and block infrastructure projects on water-quality grounds, allowing the rule to stay in effect while the appeal continues.
Four justices dissented, arguing the states and industry groups seeking the pause had never identified a single project actually harmed — and warning that the Court was turning its emergency docket into a routine merits forum without full briefing or argument.
How it got here: A federal district court vacated the EPA's certification rule in October 2021; states and industry groups appealed to the Ninth Circuit and applied to the Supreme Court to pause the ruling while the appeal proceeded.
The Case in Depth
What happened
An EPA rule (40 C.F.R. Part 121) issued to limit how broadly states could use their water-quality certification authority to delay or block infrastructure projects was challenged in court. A federal district court vacated the rule in October 2021, effectively restoring the looser pre-rule regime that had existed for roughly fifty years. A group of states and industry organizations — who had supported the stricter EPA rule as a check on state overreach — asked the Supreme Court to pause the district court's ruling while they appealed.
The question before the Court
Should a federal court order striking down the EPA's water quality certification rule be paused while an appeal proceeds in the lower courts?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court granted the stay, pausing the district court order that had struck down the EPA's water quality certification rule. The unsigned majority order provided no written explanation, but in granting the stay concluded that the applicants — states and industry groups that favored the rule's limits on state review power — had met the standard for emergency relief.
The order is not a final ruling on whether the EPA rule is valid. It simply holds the lower court's ruling in abeyance while the Ninth Circuit hears the appeal, and it expires automatically once that process concludes.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
States that had been using their water-quality review power to delay or block pipelines, power lines, and other infrastructure projects are once again subject to the EPA rule's tighter limits while the appeal continues. Industry and project developers get a temporary shield; states seeking broader review authority must wait for the Ninth Circuit to decide.
What changes now
The case returns to the Ninth Circuit, where briefing on the merits was nearly complete at the time of this order. The EPA certification rule remains in effect during that process. If the Ninth Circuit decides the case, the losing party may seek Supreme Court review. The stay will terminate automatically when the appeal is resolved or — if the Court agrees to hear the case — when the Supreme Court issues its own judgment.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether the EPA's water quality certification rule is lawful. It only pauses the district court's ruling striking it down while the appeal proceeds. The underlying question of the rule's validity remains open for the Ninth Circuit and, potentially, the Supreme Court to resolve.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Kagan
Justice Kagan argued the applicants had not come close to showing irreparable harm — the threshold requirement for any emergency stay. They could not identify a single infrastructure project blocked by a state in the five months since the district court's ruling, and the pre-rule regime that had governed for fifty years remained capable of addressing any state overreach. She also criticized the majority for granting relief on a thin record, warning that the Court's emergency docket was becoming a vehicle for deciding merits questions without full briefing and argument.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The legal standard for an emergency stay requires a party to show: a meaningful chance of winning the appeal, that it will suffer irreparable — meaning permanent and unrecoverable — harm if the stay is denied, that the balance of hardships favors granting relief, and that the public interest supports it. Courts have called stays an 'intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review' and reserved them for rare cases.
- The Court granted the stay without a written explanation, indicating a majority concluded the applicants had sufficiently met that standard and that emergency relief was warranted pending the Ninth Circuit's review of the district court's order.
- The stay is expressly conditional and limited in scope: it keeps the EPA certification rule in place only while the Ninth Circuit appeal plays out and, if sought in time, while a certiorari petition is pending before the Supreme Court. It terminates automatically if certiorari is later denied, and ends when the Court's own judgment issues if certiorari is granted.