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.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe