COLUMBUS, Ohio — In a controversial decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted a request led by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost to temporarily halt the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “good neighbor plan,” which was designed to combat air pollution and protect downwind states from high ozone levels.
The court’s ruling pauses the enforcement of the EPA’s initiative, aimed at reducing harmful emissions that contribute to smog and respiratory issues, while the case proceeds in the lower courts.
“This ruling is a setback for environmental protection and public health,” said a representative from the Sierra Club. “The EPA’s ‘good neighbor plan’ is crucial for ensuring cleaner air and protecting vulnerable communities from pollution that crosses state lines.”
Attorney General Yost celebrated the decision as a victory for state sovereignty and a check on federal overreach. “This plan, if implemented, would have imposed undue regulatory burdens on states – and the EPA doesn’t have the power to do that,” Yost said.
In an October 2023 brief requesting the stay, Yost and two other state attorneys general argued that the EPA acted unlawfully by not fully considering all aspects of the pollution issue. The brief claimed, “The EPA cannot impose such immense regulations on the States without having thought through all critical aspects of the problem it set out to solve.”
During Supreme Court arguments in February, Ohio Deputy Solicitor General Mathura Sridharan called the EPA’s actions arbitrary and capricious. She pointed out that after nearly half of the states opted out of the federal plan, the EPA did not adjust its framework accordingly. “The math doesn’t work when the inputs, 23 states, don’t match the outputs, now the 11 states that remain in the plan,” Sridharan stated.
Environmental advocates argue that delaying the “good neighbor plan” undermines efforts to ensure cleaner air for millions of Americans, particularly in states that bear the brunt of pollution from upwind sources. The plan’s suspension means continued exposure to harmful emissions, which can exacerbate health issues such as asthma and heart disease.
Today’s decision highlights the ongoing tension between federal regulatory efforts to address environmental issues and states’ rights. While proponents of the stay argue it protects state sovereignty, critics emphasize the urgent need for comprehensive measures to combat air pollution and safeguard public health.
Yost has frequently opposed what he views as federal overreach, filing multiple lawsuits against rules imposed by federal agencies that he believes exceed their granted powers.
“We are committed to defending the prerogatives of states against federal encroachment,” Yost said, though environmental groups remain concerned about the broader implications for nationwide air quality standards.