The Environmental Protection Agency blasted more than two dozen states’ attempt to have the Supreme Court halt its landmark climate rules for power plants, saying the arguments they make will not hold up in a lower court, let alone the highest.
Under a Thursday deadline set by Chief Justice John Roberts, the agency filed its response to last week’s motion by 29 states to stay the Obama administration’s far-reaching climate rules, called the Clean Power Plan.
“The relief that applicants request would be extraordinary and unprecedented, and their applications should be denied,” the EPA told Roberts in a response brief filed with the court.
It argues that the states’ motion is untimely and should wait for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to grant a decision on the merits of their arguments later this year.
The Supreme Court is ordinarily “a court of final review and not first view,” EPA argued. “Its traditional reluctance to address novel legal arguments in the first instance — without the benefit of any sustained analysis by a lower court — weighs strongly against intervention at this time.”
The states, with a number of industry groups, asked Roberts to stay the EPA rule last week, after the appeals court denied their initial request to stay the rule. The EPA said the high court should follow suit and also deny the motion.
“Such intervention is especially unwarranted in light of the nature of this case and the D.C. Circuit’s considered decision to deny a stay and expedite its review,” EPA argued.
“In any event, the D.C. Circuit’s analysis was correct: Applicants are not entitled to relief under the traditional stay factors,” the agency says.
First and foremost, the states cannot “establish a likelihood that they will ultimately succeed on the merits of their claims.” The states argue that the agency lacks the authority to move ahead with its emission plan.
The agency told Roberts that it has “well-established authority” under the Clean Air Act to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
