Courthouse Steps Decision: Ohio v. EPA

In October of 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new standards for air quality, some of which had to do with air pollution which is carried across state borders, from “upwind” states to “downwind” states. The EPA required these states to submit plans of implementation but then rejected 21 of those plans as insufficient, instead publishing a federal plan which would enforce certain more stringent ozone pollution controls. This prompted several states and companies to challenge the rule and request a temporary block to its implementation, claiming the controls could lead to power grid emergencies. The EPA and its supporters claim, however, that a stay to the rule could critically affect public health and air quality. The Supreme Court did not speak to those issues, however, but instead stayed the rule after finding a likelihood of success on the claim that the rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious.

Ohio v. EPA was argued before the Supreme Court in February and its 5-4 decision was issued this June. The Court ordered that the EPA’s enforcement of their implementation plan be stayed pending the ongoing D.C. circuit merits litigation and the disposition of the applicants’ petition for writ of certiorari.

Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio, discussed the facts of the case and the possible future implications of its decision.

Featuring:

Mathura Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General of Ohio
Moderator: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC
* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.