Input Stories

Several recent refusals by the Supreme Court to stay Environmental Protection Agency rules indicate the court may be “setting limits on its willingness to elbow aside lower courts that are considering challenges to such rules, legal experts say” (Law360, subscription).

What’s going on: Last week, the court declined to stop implementation of an NAM-opposed final rule, released in April, that severely limits greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

• Earlier this month, the justices allowed the EPA to implement a mercury air emissions rule, despite industry opposition. They also rejected calls to block an EPA rule tightening methane emissions control requirements for traditional energy companies.
• The string of rejections—which follow the court’s June decision to temporarily block the EPA’s “good neighbor” pollution rule—“indicate that a majority of the justices believe they must tread more carefully on similar attempts to jump the litigation line, experts say.”

Digging deeper: Some of the justices may be tiring of “irreparable harm” arguments by petitioners, one expert told Law360.

• And following its July decision to overturn the “Chevron doctrine”—which for 40 years had required that federal courts defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as the interpretation was reasonable—the court likely believes it must deny “most … invitations to step on the lower court when the challengers aren’t granted a stay,” one source said.

However … This isn’t to say that the court will hesitate to stay future environmental rules “if the scope and impact are exceedingly broad,” another expert said.