Date Filed: September 5, 2019
Original Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Appeals: U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status: Victory
In 2015, EPA promulgated the Clean Power Plan rule (CPP). The CPP was the Obama Administration’s attempt to severely restrict coal and natural gas power plants, with an eye toward phasing them out altogether. The CPP was immediately challenged and the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the rule before it took effect. Before the court had a chance to rule on CPP, in 2019 the EPA repealed the CPP and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. The Trump Administration justified the CPP repeal by saying the original CPP violated the major questions doctrine. The major questions doctrine requires Congress to provide a clear authorization when it authorizes executive branch agencies to make decisions of vast economic and political significance.
The ACE rule was much more limited than the CPP, but it relied on the same statutory authorities under the Clean Air Act. Several petitioners challenged the CPP repeal and ACE rule because they disagreed with EPA’s legal analysis and argued the new rule did not go far enough in restricting emissions. Robinson Enterprises challenged EPA’s underlying authority to regulate carbon dioxide under section 111 of the Clean Air Act in the new ACE rule. Robinson and allied petitioners argued that carbon dioxide emissions cannot be regulated under section 111. Instead, EPA must use the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program under sections 108–10 to regulate carbon dioxide. The NAAQS program has different requirements to justify regulating an air pollutant, and the program is primarily run by states not the federal EPA.
The D.C. Circuit consolidated the Robinson case with other challenges to the rule under the case American Lung Association v. EPA. On January 19, 2021, the court held that EPA’s CPP Repeal and ACE Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The court dismissed Robinson’s claims for lack of standing.
After the D.C. Circuit decision, the Biden Administration made it clear that it would seek to reinstate the 2015 CPP or a more stringent version of that rule. Several states and organizations appealed the D.C. Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. The Court limited its review to whether the CPP violated the major questions doctrine. It did not address Robinson’s claims that EPA could not regulate carbon dioxide under section 111. In June 2022 the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA agreed with the challengers, holding that EPA’s CPP violated the major questions doctrine. In doing so, the Court provided a clear statement of the major questions doctrine that future litigants can use to challenge government overreach.
Case Documents:
Brief of Public Health & Enviro Petitioners
Brief of Robinson Enterprises, et al