In brief
The Supreme Court has recently upheld new E.P.A. requirements for power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, marking a possible shift in the court's typical resistance to environmental rule enforcement.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority has frequently pushed back against environmental regulations in recent years, yet a string of recent decisions has raised hopes among regulators for a potential shift in judicial philosophy. On Wednesday, the Court declined to issue a stay against the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.)’s new mandate that compels a significant number of coal- and gas-burning power plants to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent by 2032. This ruling allows the controversial rule to remain intact while it is contested in a lower court.This is not the only recent decision favoring regulatory actions. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court also dismissed two emergency requests against E.P.A. regulations on mercury emissions and methane gas controls. These outcomes contrast sharply with earlier rulings from this year where the Court temporarily halted applications of the “good neighbor plan,” which aimed to mitigate air pollution crossing state lines. Critics labeled this decision as an overreach by the Court, which frequently uses a so-called shadow docket to handle cases without full disclosures.Richard Lazarus, an environmental law expert from Harvard, suggested that the Court's latest rulings could signify a crucial turning point, notably diverging from its previous stance taken in 2016 when it blocked President Obama's Clean Power Plan—another key regulation on power plant emissions—before it was fully evaluated in lower courts.These recent developments suggest an intriguing trajectory for the high court's relationship with environmental law, sparking discussions about whether this could mark the beginning of a new chapter in regulatory oversight.
