National Mining Association v. Environmental Protection Agency

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 25 Nov 2014

Whether an administrative agency, when authorized by Congress to regulate only if "appropriate," can deem the cost of the regulation irrelevant, with the result that, by the agency's own estimate, regulatory costs outweigh benefits by almost two thousand to one.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case addressed whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider costs when regulating hazardous air pollutants emitted by power plants. The EPA had determined that it was 'appropriate and necessary' to regulate these emissions under the Clean Air Act, without initially considering costs. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the EPA acted unreasonably by not taking into account compliance costs before deciding to regulate mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, emphasized that cost is an important factor in determining what regulations are appropriate and necessary under federal law.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Kagan authored the dissenting opinion, arguing that while cost consideration is essential at some stage of regulatory processes, it need not be considered at every step or as a threshold matter. She contended that Congress granted discretion to agencies like the EPA on how best to implement statutory mandates effectively within their expertise areas. According to her view, requiring upfront cost analysis could hinder effective regulation aimed at protecting public health and safety from significant hazards posed by industrial pollution.