The Supreme Court ruled in Ohio v. EPA that the Environmental Protection Agency failed to adequately justify its federal implementation plan under the Clean Air Act.

Claim reviewed: The Supreme Court ruled in Ohio v. EPA that the Environmental Protection Agency failed to adequately justify its federal implementation plan under the Clean Air Act.

The Supreme Court found that EPA had likely failed to adequately explain its federal implementation plan, but the June 2024 decision was an emergency stay,…

Verdict: Mostly True

Key evidence

  • The Supreme Court’s June 27, 2024 opinion stayed enforcement of EPA’s Good Neighbor Rule rather than entering a final merits judgment invalidating the federal implementation plan.
  • The majority concluded that EPA had not adequately explained why the plan remained appropriate after the number of participating states was reduced, making the challengers likely to prevail.
  • CBS News and legal analyses accurately described the Court as finding EPA’s explanation inadequate, but some secondary summaries omit the decision’s preliminary, stay-stage posture.

Detailed analysis

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. EPA focused on whether the Environmental Protection Agency had reasonably explained why its federal implementation plan remained appropriate after several states were no longer covered. The majority concluded that the challengers were likely to succeed under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard and stayed enforcement of the rule. (SOURCES_1, 3)

Sources

FactVerify home