US Top Court Upholds Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Barack Obama a victory on Tuesday by upholding a federal environmental regulation requiring some states to limit pollution that contributes to unhealthy air in neighboring states. By a 6-2 vote, the court said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acted reasonably in requiring 28 states to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which can lead to soot and smog. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the EPA rule a cost-effective way to allocate responsibility for emission reductions among upwind states, and that the EPA need not consider each state's proportionate responsibility for the emissions in question.
Justices Question Obama Climate Change Regulations
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared closely divided on Monday as it weighed whether the administration of President Barack Obama exceeded its authority when crafting the nation's first greenhouse gas emissions regulations. Justice Anthony Kennedy could hold the swing vote on the nine-member high court, with conservative justices skeptical of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approach and liberal justices generally supportive. It is possible the court could opt for a compromise in which the EPA loses the case but retains most of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the specific program at issue in the case. Such a move could potentially win the support of some liberal justices.
Supreme Court Rules Federal Law Preempts State Tank Vessel Regulations
A unanimous Supreme Court ruled the state of Washington overstepped its authority in attempting to regulate the operation of tank vessels in state waters. The Court's 9-0 decision in the closely watched case (Intertanko v. Locke, United States v. Locke) reversed the June 1998 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding most of the state's "Best Achievable Protection" (BAP) standards for tank vessels. The Court found sufficient evidence to declare four of the Washington regulations unconstitutional and remanded the case so the validity of the others may be assessed by a lower court "in light of the considerable federal interest at stake and in conformity with the principles" set forth in the Supreme Court decision.
