The high court issued a unanimous opinion in Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday, ruling that local courts can hear objections to federal air quality laws, rather than defer to courts in Washington D.C.
The case stems from a 2015 decision by the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, that made air quality standards for ozone more strict.
Ozone pollution happens when nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic compounds, often called VOCs, according to the EPA. Essentially, when pollutants from cars, refineries, boilers and other sources of emissions react to sunlight and hot temperatures, ground-level ozone forms.
Ozone pollution can be common in Utah, especially during summer months. It’s been linked to a number of health issues, causing respiratory problems and even intellectual disabilities, according to a recent study from the University of Utah.
States were required to submit plans outlining their compliance with the new ozone standards, which included how they would adhere to the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” provision — essentially, how the state would try to reign in emissions that might impact air quality in other states.
The EPA rejected plans put forward by 21 states, including Utah and Oklahoma, which sued the agency in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Colorado. But the EPA argued the lawsuits should be heard in a Washington D.C. Circuit Court, since its rule disapproving of the state air quality plans constituted a “single, nationally applicable action.”
The Colorado court complied — but Utah and Oklahoma disagreed, instead taking the issue of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.
And in Wednesday’s opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court agreed, handing the case back to the 10th Circuit in Colorado.
“These two disapprovals are undisputedly locally or regionally applicable actions. A (state implementation plan) is a state-specific plan, so an EPA disapproval on its face applies only to the State that proposed the (state implementation plan),” Thomas wrote.
In a statement, Utah Attorney General Derek Brown celebrated the ruling, describing it as a win for Utah.
“The Court agreed with Utah’s argument involving the Clean Air Act that local courts should handle local issues, and the federal government should collaborate with the states — not ignore their unique differences,” Brown said. “We are also grateful to the Trump Administration’s EPA for reconsidering its ruling that required litigation in the first place, and look forward to our continued partnership on behalf of Utah.”
In March, the Trump administration announced it would reconsider the good neighbor provision, calling it “troubled.” The EPA said it would work with states whose implementation plans were initially rejected by the Biden administration’s EPA, including Utah.
Justice Samuel Alito did not take part in the decision. According to SCOTUSblog, Alito owns stock in a company that was also challenging the EPA’s good neighbor provision.
This report was originally published at UtahNewsDispatch.com.
