Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

The Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan after coal utilities and 29 states filed a legal challenge against the EPA. (Photo: Davis Staedtler/flickr/cc)

Caving to Coal Interests, Supreme Court Blocks Key Climate Action

"We’re disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can’t stay climate change and you can’t stay climate action," says EPA spokesperson

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

In a startling ruling Tuesday night, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to lower greenhouse gas emissions, pending resolution of a last-gasp lawsuit filed against the initiative by the coal industry.

Voting 5-4, the justices ordered the Obama administration not to implement the Clean Power Plan (CPP) until it has been reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with arguments set for June 2.

According to SCOTUSBlog, that means the plan may end up being stalled "until after the president leaves office next January," and spares coal-power plant operators from "having to do anything to begin planning for a shift to energy sources that the government considers to be cleaner."

Environmental groups said the ruling was a step in the wrong direction, but remained confident that the D.C. district court would uphold the CPP on legal merits and that clean energy, with widespread public support, would triumph over the fossil fuel industry.

"If there was ever a Supreme Court decision that looked backwards instead of towards the future, this was it," said Jamie Henn, communications director of the climate group 350.org. "Make no mistake, this case was brought forward on behalf of the fossil fuel industry and companies like ExxonMobil who will hold back change by any means necessary, but their days are numbered. The American people overwhelmingly support efforts to fight climate change and momentum is on our side."

A slew of utility companies and 29 largely Republican-led states filed a legal challenge (pdf) in October against the CPP and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which crafted the plan, stating that the department had intruded on states' sovereign rights over industry within their borders by ordering them to meet certain climate targets. The CPP requires states to cut greenhouse gas emissions from coal-powered plants by a third by 2030 from 2005 levels.

Tuesday's order had the support of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. "The D.C. Circuit will review the plan before a three-judge panel but, once the panel has ruled, the case could be reheard by the full court of appeals before moving on to the Supreme Court," SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston wrote.

Erich Pica, executive director of Friends of the Earth, warned that the court's decision delays implementation of the CPP "while we are running out of time to combat climate change."

"It did not, however, address the merits of the case. The Environmental Protection Agency spent years crafting the Clean Power Plan, which has a strong legal foundation in the Clean Air Act. The rule has overwhelming support among the American people," Pica said, adding that the court's decision was a call "to all who care about our planet to demand more from our politicians as we fight climate change."

The White House issued an immediate disagreement with the ruling.

EPA spokesperson Melissa Harrison said, "We’re disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can’t stay climate change and you can’t stay climate action. We believe strongly in this rule and we will continue working with our partners to address carbon pollution."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
We need your help.

Support progressive journalism.

Common Dreams is not your average news site. We don't survive on clicks or advertising dollars. We rely entirely on your support. And without it, our independent progressive journalism simply wouldn’t exist. Every gift of every amount matters.

Join the fight and support our common dreams today.

Indigenous Women Invite Deb Haaland to See Devastation of Line 3 for Herself

The tar sands project "poses a significant threat to water, Indigenous treaty rights, and worsens the global climate crisis," the group wrote to Biden's Interior Secretary.

Kenny Stancil, staff writer ·


After SCOTUS Upholds ACA, Progressives Set Sights on Medicare for All

Now, said campaigner Michael Lighty, "we can instead go to a system that will actually guarantee healthcare to everybody, which the ACA does not do and cannot do."

Jessica Corbett, staff writer ·


McConnell Makes Clear 'All Republicans Will Oppose' Manchin Voting Rights Compromise

"The idea that Manchin can pass a law to protect the vote with help from the very people it needs protecting from is suspect at best."

Jake Johnson, staff writer ·


'Long Overdue': House Passes Barbara Lee's 2002 AUMF Repeal

"The fight to end forever wars has been a comprehensive movement from advocates and activists and without their work, we wouldn't be in this position today," the California Democrat said.

Andrea Germanos, staff writer ·


'Dangerous Precedent': US High Court Sides With Corporate Giants Nestle and Cargill in Child Slavery Case

A lawyer for six men who alleged they were victims of human trafficking said the corporations "should be held accountable for abetting a system of child slavery."

Julia Conley, staff writer ·