Ohio v. EPA

Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Clean Air Act.

Background
The United States Clean Air Act is a law intended to reduce the impacts of air pollution. In the Clean Air Act, there is a section called the "Good Neighbor" provision, which mandates states to implement policies to reduce the impact of air pollution on other states, such as asthma or bronchitis. In October 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency set new standard for reduction of ozone pollution. This required states to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs). In 2022, the EPA announced that it would be denying 23 states' SIPs. In response, the EPA proposed a Federal Implementation Plan that amended the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The EPA had a right to do this under the Clean Air Act. Three plaintiffs, collectively referred to as "Ohio," filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court
Ohio claimed that the EPA's federal implementation plan would put undue pressure on the U.S. electrical grid. The EPA argued that the plan contained important public benefits that if halted would cause delays in improving air quality that could be harmful. The EPA also argued that Ohio did not demonstrate any harm that would arise if the plan remained in effect while the legal proceedings continued. The Supreme Court did not put the EPA plan on hold while legal proceedings were underway. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that the EPA plan would be stayed pending petition for review and writ of certiorari.

Majority opinion
Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court, which John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh joined. They claimed that the EPA's methodology in their report was misreported and incorrect. They applied the Clean Air Act's section that allows a court to reverse a federal implementation plan if it is "arbitrary or capricious" and found in favor of Ohio.

Dissent
Amy Coney Barrett delivered the dissent, joined by Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent argued that the petition did not meet the criteria for emergency relief and that the case should be re-evaluated on its merits.