The Supreme Court split 4-4, allowing the ruling below to stand. Justice Ginsburg, writing to affirm the Ninth Circuit, found that EPA retains supervisory jurisdiction over state agency’s findings vis-à-vis the reasonableness of implementing emissions-reducing technology, and that EPA correctly found that ADEC’s decision lacked evidentiary support. EPA’s option to seek judicial review of the permit’s issuance did not preclude the agency’s authority to issue the stop-orders. In dissent, Justice Kennedy argued that EPA exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction and arbitrarily overruled ADEC’s regulatory decision which was in line with the CAA’s requirements.
Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation
- This case demonstrates the difficult issues that United States-style federalism present in the context of climate litigation. The CAA grants broad authority to a federal agency (EPA) to regulate GHGs but relies in part on state-developed plans and enforcement of the statute’s standards. When conservative state agency’s determinations conflict with federal guidance or preference, it presents a close question for courts as to which decision should stand (see the close split here). The modern, more conservative Supreme Court, likely would side with Alaska were a similar case to arise. This means effective, national regulation may be more difficult in a broad variety of climate change-related contexts. See West Virginia v. EPA.
Pages: 1 2