Dakota v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
Headline: Court pauses EPA’s carbon pollution guidelines for existing electric power plants, staying the rule while appeals and possible Supreme Court review proceed, temporarily halting enforcement.
Holding: The Court granted a stay of the EPA’s 2015 carbon pollution guidelines for existing electric utility generating units, pausing the rule while appeals and any Supreme Court review proceed.
- Pauses enforcement of EPA’s 2015 carbon guidelines for existing electric utility generating units.
- Allows legal challenges to proceed in the D.C. Circuit and possible Supreme Court review.
- Ends automatically if Supreme Court denies review; ends when Court enters judgment if it grants review.
Summary
Background
An application to pause enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units,” published October 23, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 64,662), was submitted to the Chief Justice and referred to the full Court. The applicants have filed petitions for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and may seek Supreme Court review by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari.
Reasoning
The Court granted the application and entered a stay of the EPA guidelines while the applicants’ petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit and any petition for Supreme Court review are resolved. The order specifies the stay remains in effect pending disposition of those petitions. It explains that if the Supreme Court is asked for review and denies the petition, the stay ends automatically; if the Court grants review, the stay will end when the Court enters its judgment. The order is procedural and does not decide the underlying legal merits of the EPA rule.
Real world impact
The order pauses enforcement of the EPA’s 2015 carbon-guideline regulation for existing electric utility generating units while legal challenges proceed, temporarily limiting immediate application of the rule. The pause is conditional on later court actions, so the ultimate status of the rule depends on outcomes in the D.C. Circuit and any Supreme Court proceedings.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan stated they would have denied the application, indicating they disagreed with pausing the rule while appeals move forward.
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?