American Lung Association et al., Petitioners v. Eme Homer City Generation, L. P., et al.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 24 Jun 2013

The Clean Air Act's "Good Neighbor" provision requires that state implementation plans contain "adequate" provisions prohibiting emissions that will "contribute significantly" to another state's nonattainment of health-based air quality standards. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2) (D)(i). A divided D.C. Circuit panel invalidated, as contrary to statute, a major EPA regulation, the Transport Rule, that gives effect to the provision and requires 27 states to reduce emissions that contribute to downwind states' inability to attain or maintain air quality standards. The questions presented are: (1) Whether the statutory challenges to EPA's methodology for defining upwind states' "significant contributions" were properly before the court, given the failure of anyone to raise these objections at all, let alone with the requisite "reasonable specificity," "during the period for public comment," 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B); (2) Whether the court's imposition of its own detailed methodology for implementing the Good Neighbor provision violated foundational principles governing judicial review of administrative decision -making; (3) Whether an upwind state that is polluting a downwind state is free of any obligations under the Good Neighbor provision unless and until EPA has quantified the upwind state's contribution to downwind states' air pollution problems.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case addressed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate air pollution that crosses state lines. The EPA had developed a rule known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which aimed to reduce emissions from power plants in upwind states that significantly contributed to downwind states' inability to meet federal air quality standards. The D.C. Circuit Court initially vacated this rule, arguing it exceeded EPA’s statutory authority and imposed excessive obligations on certain states without allowing them an opportunity for initial compliance planning. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the EPA acted within its rights by interpreting ambiguous provisions of the Clean Air Act and implementing cost-effective measures for reducing interstate pollution transport. This ruling reinforced federal regulatory powers over environmental issues impacting multiple jurisdictions.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and in part by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, dissented. The dissent argued that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act when it implemented the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. They contended that the EPA's approach to allocating emissions reductions among upwind states was not consistent with statutory requirements because it did not adequately consider each state's proportional contribution to downwind pollution. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for allowing what they viewed as an overly broad interpretation of federal power at the expense of state sovereignty. The dissent expressed concern about judicial deference given to administrative agencies like the EPA in interpreting statutes beyond their clear meaning.