Cooperative v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
Headline: Federal court pauses the EPA’s 2015 carbon-pollution guidelines for existing power plants, halting enforcement nationwide while appeals in the D.C. Circuit and possible Supreme Court review proceed.
Holding:
- Halts enforcement of EPA’s 2015 carbon guidelines for existing power plants during appeals.
- Order ends automatically if the Supreme Court denies review.
- If the Court hears the case, the pause ends when it issues its judgment.
Summary
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency issued the "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units" on October 23, 2015. Parties challenging the rule filed petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Those challengers also may seek Supreme Court review. The challengers asked the Justices to pause the rule while the appeals and any further review play out.
Reasoning
The core question addressed was whether the EPA’s 2015 guidelines should be put on hold while courts consider the challengers’ petitions. The Chief Justice referred the application to the full Court and the Court granted a stay. The stay halts enforcement of the EPA’s guidelines pending disposition of the D.C. Circuit petitions and any petition for Supreme Court review, with specific conditions for when the stay will end.
Real world impact
Because the stay pauses the rule, existing power plants covered by the guidelines will not be subject to those requirements while appeals proceed. The order automatically ends if the Supreme Court denies review; if the Court takes the case, the pause ends when the Court issues its judgment. The ruling is therefore temporary and could change depending on later appellate or Supreme Court action.
Dissents or concurrances
Four Justices — Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan — stated they would have denied the application to stay, indicating disagreement with putting the rule on hold.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?