New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Environmental Groups Ask Supreme Court to Revisit Clean Power Plan Stay

Attorneys argue that delays have let the EPA circumvent its duty to regulate greenhouse gases

U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC. 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Environmentalists want the Supreme Court to reconsider its unprecedented decision 2 ½ years ago to stay the Clean Power Plan.

Attorneys for a coalition of green groups Friday asked Chief Justice John Roberts to force opponents of the plan to explain why the stay should continue. The Supreme Court halted implementation of the rule in February 2016 on a 5-4 vote; it was the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s last action on the court.

In their letter, the environmentalist groups cited the frustration expressed by some judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the stay, combined with litigation delays in the lower court, has allowed EPA to circumvent its duties to regulate greenhouse gases.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A full panel of D.C. Circuit judges heard oral arguments over the rule in September 2016 but never issued any decision on its legality. The D.C. Circuit agreed to halt litigation in April 2017 and has since issued orders extending the hold.

“The litigation has come to a protracted standstill with the support of the parties that sought a stay in this Court,” the environmentalists wrote to Roberts. “In light of these changed circumstances, the Court may wish to require the parties to explain why the stay should continue in effect.”

The coalition includes the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity.

The letter comes as the Trump administration last week informed the court that it will not complete a replacement for the 2015 Obama rule until at least early next year. EPA has asked the D.C. Circuit to keep the case in abeyance as it completes work on the proposal (Climatewire, July 27).

Some judges are getting impatient with the administration’s timeline for revising the rule, as the environmentalists noted in their letter.

In June, as the D.C. Circuit granted the administration’s latest request to stay the litigation while it works on the replacement, two Obama-appointed judges warned it would be the last time they agree to such a delay.

“Petitioners and EPA have hijacked the Court’s equitable power for their own purposes,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote in a statement joined by Judge Patricia Millett.

Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee, wrote in a separate statement that the Supreme Court’s stay has given EPA “indefinite license” to avoid complying with its statutory duty to address greenhouse gases (Greenwire, June 26).

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe