Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to link.springer.com

Skip to main content

Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency: The Emergency Docket Shapes National Policy Again

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
SCOTUS 2024
  • 83 Accesses

Abstract

In a term with multiple major cases addressing the shape and scope of the administrative state, the Court’s emergency docket ruling in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency temporarily pausing a not-yet-fully-implemented environmental rule may seem technical and less consequential. The majority’s approach, however, reinforces a template for pausing regulations prior to full judicial review. It also underlines the trend of assigning more power to the courts to manage and calibrate administrative regulation. This chapter provides some background on the Clean Air Act and describes how the EPA works with states to meet air quality standards. It then turns to the details and implications of this dispute.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from £29.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Chapter
GBP 19.95
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
GBP 21.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
GBP 27.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, 603 US ___, No. 23A349, slip op. at 8–9.

  2. 2.

    Id., slip op. at 10.

  3. 3.

    Id., slip op. at 11.

  4. 4.

    Id., slip op. at 12–13.

  5. 5.

    Id., slip op. at 14.

  6. 6.

    Id., slip op. at 15.

  7. 7.

    Id., slip op. at 17.

  8. 8.

    Id., slip op. at 1 (Barrett, J.).

  9. 9.

    Id., slip op. at 5 (Barrett, J.).

  10. 10.

    Id., slip op. at 6 (Barrett, J.).

  11. 11.

    Id., slip op. at 17 (Barrett, J.).

  12. 12.

    Id., slip op. at 19–20 (Barrett, J.). Emphasis Barrett’s.

  13. 13.

    See discussion of Loper Bright v. Raimondo in Chapter 11 of this volume.

  14. 14.

    West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. ___, No. 20–1530 (2022).

Bibliography

  • Bowers, Kate. 2024. “Supreme Court to Consider Request to Stay EPA’s Good Neighbor Interstate Air Pollution Rule.” LSB11107. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency. 2024, 603 U.S. US Supreme Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shouse, Kate. 2018. “The Clean Air Act’s Good Neighbor Provision: Overview of Interstate Air Pollution Control.” 7–5700. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45299.pdf.

  • Vladeck, Stephen. 2023. The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Novkov .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2025 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Novkov, J. (2025). Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency: The Emergency Docket Shapes National Policy Again. In: Schweber, H. (eds) SCOTUS 2024. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-78551-1_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics