Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court not to intervene, allowing the EPA to issue its new rule "taking into account all relevant considerations, including changes to the electricity sector that have occurred during the last several years", and allow time for it to be reviewed, rather than make judgment on a speculative EPA rule. [26 ...
The applications for a stay are granted; enforcement of EPA’s rule against the applicants shall be stayed pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D. C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought: Court membership; Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to halt the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Good Neighbor Rule,” which regulates interstate air pollution, in a ruling Thursday, the latest move by the ...
The EPA has lost two significant cases at the Supreme Court in recent years. In 2022, the court limited the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act to combat ...
The Supreme Court decision blocks EPA enforcement of the rule and sends the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is considering a lawsuit challenging ...
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon ...
It was the latest ruling by the conservative-majority court restricting the powers of the EPA. The EPA issued the rule at issue in March 2023 intending to target gases that form ozone, a key ...
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether the Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when deciding to regulate, rather than later in the process of issuing the regulation.