West Virginia v. Envtl. Prot. Agency

Decision Date30 June 2022
Docket Number20-1530, No. 20-1531, No. 20-1778, No. 20-1780
Parties WEST VIRGINIA, et al., Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. The North American Coal Corporation, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. North Dakota, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record, Bruce S. Gelber, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Meghan E. Greenfield, Eric G. Hostetler, Benjamin Carlisle Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Carroll Wade, McGuffey III, Troutman Pepper, Hamilton Sanders LLP, Atlanta, GA, Timothy L. McHugh, Troutman Pepper, Hamilton Sanders LLP, Richmond, VA, Misha Tseytlin, Counsel of Record, Kevin M. Leroy, Troutman Pepper, Hamilton Sanders LLP, Chicago, IL, for Respondents.

F. William Brownell, Erica N. Peterson, Hunton Andrews, Kurth LLP, Washington, DC, Elbert Lin, Counsel of Record, Hunton Andrews, Kurth LLP, Richmond, VA, for respondent, America's Power.

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Lindsay S. See, Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Michael R. Williams* , Special Counsel, Thomas T. Lampman, Caleb A. Seckman, Assistant Solicitors General, Office of the West Virginia, Attorney General, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner State of West Virginia.

Steve Marshall, Attorney General, State of Alabama, Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, State of Alaska, Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, State of Arkansas, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, State of Georgia. Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General, State of Indiana, Derek Schmidt, Attorney General, State of Kansas, Jeff Landry, Attorney General, State of Louisiana. Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, State of Missouri, Austin Knudsen, Attorney General, State of Montana, Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, State of Nebraska. Dave Yost, Attorney General, State of Ohio, Mike Hunter, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson, Attorney General, State of South Carolina. Jason Ravnsborg, Attorney General, State of South Dakota. Ken Paxton, Attorney General, State of Texas. Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General, State of Utah, Bridget Hill, Attorney General, State of Wyoming, Tate Reeves, Governor, State of Mississippi, By counsel: Joseph Anthony Scalfani, Jackson, MS, for Petitioners.

Emily C. Schilling, Counsel of Record, Holland & Hart LLP, Washington, DC, Tina R. Van Bockern, Holland & Hart LLP, Denver, CO, for Respondents.

Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General, State of North Dakota, Matthew Sagsveen, Solicitor General, Margaret Olson, Assistant Attorney General, North Dakota Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, Paul M. Seby* , Special Assistant, Attorney General, Matthew K. Tieslau, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Denver, CO, for petitioner State of North Dakota.

Kevin Poloncarz, Covington & Burling LLP, San Francisco, CA, S. Conrad Scott, Covington & Burling LLP, New York, NY, Beth S. Brinkmann, Counsel of Record, Eric Chung, Laura E. Dolbow, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, for Power Company Respondents.

Jeffrey Prieto, General Counsel, Gautam Srinivasan, Associate General Counsel, Matthew C. Marks, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Stephanie L. Hogan, Assistant General Counsel, Howard J. Hoffman, Abirami Vijayan, Scott Jordan, Ryland Shengzhi Li, Nora Greenglass, Daniel P. Schramm, Stacey Simone Garfinkle, Attorneys, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Meghan E. Greenfield, Eric G. Hostetler, Chloe H. Kolman, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Federal Respondents.

Sean H. Donahue Counsel of Record, David T. Goldberg, Donahue, Goldberg & Littleton, Washington, D.C., for Non-Governmental Organization and Trade Association Respondents.

Lisa S. Blatt, Counsel of Record, Matthew B. Nicholson, Kari M. Lorentson* , Mihir Khetarpal** , Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC for Amici Curiae.

Charles T. Wehland, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Jeffery D. Ubersax, Kushner & Hamed Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH, Yaakov M. Roth, Counsel of Record, Jeffrey R. Johnson, Brinton Lucas, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Martin T. Booher, Joshua T. Wilson, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Cleveland, OH, Mark W. DeLaquil, Andrew M. Grossman, Counsel of Record, Jenna M. Lorence, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Drew H. Wrigley, Attorney General, State Of North Dakota, Matthew Sagsveen, Solicitor General, Margaret Olson, Assistant Attorney General, North Dakota Office of Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, Paul M. Seby *, Special Assistant, Attorney General, Christopher L. Bell, Matthew K. Tieslau, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Denver, CO, for Petitioner State of North Dakota.

Charles T. Wehland, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Jeffery D. Ubersax, Kushner & Hamed Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH 44114, Yaakov M. Roth, Counsel of Record, Jeffrey R. Johnson, J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Jones Day, 51 Louisiana Ave., Washington, D.C. for Petitioner.

Michael J. Myers, Senior Counsel, Andrew G. Frank Brian M. Lusignan Assistant Attorneys General. Letitia James, Attorney General, State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood* , Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, Matthew W. Grieco, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, New York, NY, Rob Bonta, Attorney General State of California, Sacramento, CA, Phil J. Weiser, Attorney General State of Colorado, Denver, CO, William Tong, Attorney General State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, Kathleen Jennings, Attorney General State of Delaware, Wilmington, DE, Holly T. Shikada, Attorney General State of Hawai'i, Honolulu, HI, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General State of Illinois, Chicago, IL, Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General State of Maine, Augusta, ME, Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General State of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, Maura Healey, Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, Dana Nessel, Attorney General State of Michigan, Lansing, MI, Keith Ellison, Attorney General State of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General State of Nevada, Carson City, NV, Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General State of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ, Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM, Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General State of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General State of Oregon, Salem, OR, Josh Shapiro, Attorney General Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA, Peter F. Neronha, Attorney General State of Rhode Island, Providence, RI, Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General State of Vermont, Montpelier, VT, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General State of Washington, Seattle, WA, Joshua L. Kaul, Attorney General State of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, Karl A. Racine, Attorney General District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Teresa Taylor Tate, City Attorney City of Boulder, Boulder, CO, Celia Meza, Corporation Counsel City of Chicago, Chicago, IL , Kristin M. Bronson, City Attorney City and County of Denver, Denver, CO, Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, Georgia Pestana, Corporation Counsel City of New York, New York, NY, Diana P. Cortes, City Solicitor City of Philadelphia, One Parkway Building, Philadelphia, PA, Thomas F. Pepe, City Attorney City of South Miami, Coral Gables, FL, for Respondents.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plants by setting a "standard of performance" for their emission of certain pollutants into the air. 84 Stat. 1683, 42 U. S. C. § 7411(a)(1). That standard may be different for new and existing plants, but in each case it must reflect the "best system of emission reduction" that the Agency has determined to be "adequately demonstrated" for the particular category. §§ 7411(a)(1), (b)(1), (d). For existing plants, the States then implement that requirement by issuing rules restricting emissions from sources within their borders.

Since passage of the Act 50 years ago, EPA has exercised this authority by setting performance standards based on measures that would reduce pollution by causing plants to operate more cleanly. In 2015, however, EPA issued a new rule concluding that the "best system of emission reduction" for existing coal-fired power plants included a requirement that such facilities reduce their own production of electricity, or subsidize increased generation by natural gas, wind, or solar sources.

The question before us is whether this broader conception of EPA's authority is within the power granted to it by the Clean Air Act.

I
A

The Clean Air Act establishes three main regulatory programs to control air pollution from stationary sources such as power plants. Clean Air Amendments of 1970, 84 Stat. 1676, 42 U. S. C. § 7401 et seq. One program is the New Source Performance Standards program of Section 111, at issue here. The other two are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program, set out in Sections 108 through 110 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 7408 – 7410, and the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) program, set out in Section 112, § 7412. To understand the place and function of Section 111 in the statutory scheme, some background on the other two programs is in order.

The NAAQS program addresses air pollutants that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," and "the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources." § 7408(a)(1). After identifying such pollutants, EPA establishes a NAAQS for each. The NAAQS represents "the maximum airborne concentration of [the] pollutant that the public health can...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Wash. Alliance of Tech. Workers v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 4, 2022
    ...the lengthy course of these proceedings").On remand, the district court should also treat the effect of West Virginia v. EPA , ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 213 L.Ed.2d 896 (2022), on the section 1324a(h)(3) analysis. See supra note 11. In that decision, the Supreme Court determined that ......
  • Alaska Industrial Dev. & Exp. Auth. v. Biden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Alaska
    • August 7, 2023
    ...95, 111 (2d Cir. 2018)); Docket 67 at 11-12 (first citing FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 142 S.Ct. 1638, 1649 (2022); then citing West Virginia, 142 S.Ct. at 2607-08; then Ala. Ass'n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S.Ct. 2485, 2486 (2021); then citing Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 ......
  • Texas v. United States, 21-40680
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • October 5, 2022
    ...Id. at 181 (quoting King v. Burwell , 576 U.S. 473, 486, 135 S.Ct. 2480, 192 L.Ed.2d 483 (2015) ).206 West Virginia v. EPA , ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2614, 213 L.Ed.2d 896 (2022) (quoting Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA , 573 U.S. 302, 324, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 189 L.Ed.2d 372 (2014) ).207 S......
  • Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Su
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • August 23, 2023
    ...original)). In short, it applies when the question presented is "whether Congress in fact meant to confer the power the agency has asserted." Id. But does not contend that OSHA has taken a specific action that exceeds the power that Congress delegated to OSHA. Cf. id. at 2610-16 (holding th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • SEC Commissioner Speaks on Shareholder Proposals, Proxy Statements, and Rule 14a-8
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 28, 2023
    ...1996. [45] Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, Pub. L. 112-106, Apr. 5, 2012. [46] West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). [47] Id. at 2609. [48] 17 CFR 240.18(b)-(e). [49] In 1982, the Commission proposed a similar shareholder proposal regime whereby comp......
  • The U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Litigants Can Bring Constitutional Challenges To Agency Enforcement In Federal District Court
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 2, 2023
    ...1341 (2021) (rejecting the FTC's ability to obtain restitution or disgorgement in addition to injunctive relief); West Virginia v. EPA,142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (holding the EPA lacked authority to impose emissions caps through a pollution-shifting scheme). This is a significant change to exis......
  • What’s Next Following the Supreme Court’s Decision in Sackett v. EPA?
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 14, 2023
    ...[19] Id. at 1341-43, 1362 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in judgment), 1359 (Kagan, J., concurring in judgment). [20] Id. at 1341. [21] 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). [22] https://www.epa.gov/wotus/definition-waters-united-states-rule-status-and-litigation-update. [23] Id. Michigan, New Jersey, and Fl......
  • New California Legislation Would Be a Major Step Forward for Climate Disclosure
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • July 20, 2023
    ...[49] See, e.g., West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) (striking down agency’s assertion of authority to adopt a Clean Power Plan). [50] Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. ___ (June 30, 2023). [51] Sackett v. EPA, 600 U.S. ___ (May 25, 2023), slip op. at 23. [52] ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 books & journal articles
  • Deciding Without an Appointment: Examining the Appointments Clause and Administrative Arbitration
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 111-2, December 2022
    • December 1, 2022
    ...federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specif‌ically authorize it”). 129. See, e.g. , West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2610, 2615–16 (2022) (utilizing the major questions doctrine to limit EPA’s authority to regulate under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air A......
  • The Education-Democracy Nexus and Educational Subordination
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 111-3, March 2023
    • March 1, 2023
    ...142 S. Ct. 2228, 2284 (2022). 390. N.Y. State Rif‌le & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2156 (2022). 391. West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2616 (2022). 392. 142 S. Ct. 1987 (2022). 393. 142 S. Ct. 2407 (2022). 394. 401 F. Supp. 3d 207, 208 (D. Me. 2019), aff’d , 979 F.3d 21 (1s......
  • Environmental Crimes
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • July 1, 2023
    ...an “administrative compliance order” without a “full and fair hearing before an impartial tribunal”). 71. W.V. v. Env’t Prot. Agency, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). 72. Id. at 2599, 2610–16; see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 7411(a)(1), (b)(1), (d) (setting forth statutory regime for reulating power plants by......
  • "THE TIMOROUS MAY STAY AT HOME": JUDGE CARDOZO'S PROPHECY IN CONTEMPORARY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 86 No. 2, June 2023
    • June 22, 2023
    ...Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560; then quoting Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; and then quoting Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 158). (421) West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (425) Id. at 2599. (426) See id. at 2602-04. (427) See id. at 2605. (428) See EPA. THE CLEAN POWER PLAN BY THE NUMBERS 1 (2015). https://aroh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT