Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 19-1140, 19-1165, 19-1166, 19-1173, 19-1175, 19-1176, 19-1177, 19-1179, 19-1185, 19-1186, 19-1187, 19-1188 · judgment January 19, 2021
Before the decision, about 2.2× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a D.C. Circuit decision below, counsel with five or more prior petitions here, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).
Questions presented
Clean Air Act Section lll(d), 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), authorizes EPA to impose standards of performance for existing sources' emission of certain pollutants. In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410,424 (2011), this Court endorsed EPA's longstanding view that it may not apply Section lll(d) to sources that are already regulated under the Act's stringent Section 112 ''hazardous air pollutants" program. Nonetheless, EPA promulgated its "Clean Power Plan" to impose carbon dioxide emission limits under Section lll(d) on coal-fired power plants that are already regulated under Section 112. "[O]ne of the most consequential rules ever proposed by an administrative agency," Pet.App.172a, the Clean Power Plan would fundamentally transform the U.S. energy system by "shifting" generation from fossil-fuel-fired plants to other sources of electricity. After EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan as ultra vires, the D.C. Circuit vacated that action on the ground that Section lll(d) effectively places "no limits" on EPA. Accordingly, the questions presented are:
-
Whether EPA may employ 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d) to impose standards of performance on existing stationary sources that are regulated under the ''hazardous air pollutants" program of 42 U.S.C. § 7412.
-
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d) clearly authorizes EPA to decide such matters of vast economic and political significance as whether and how to restructure the nation's energy system. LIMITED TO QUESTION 2 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. Consolidated with 20-1530, 20-1531, and 20-1780 and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Andrew Michael Grossman
Baker & Hostetler LLP
For respondent
Beth Susan Brinkmann
Covington & Burling LLP
Argument & decision
Argued February 28, 2022 — Lindsay S. See · Jacob M. Roth · Elizabeth B. Prelogar · Beth S. Br.... Audio and transcript
Decided June 30, 2022. Opinion by Roberts, C.J..
Proceedings
- Aug 01 2022JUDGMENT ISSUED
- Jun 30 2022Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. VIDED.
- Feb 28 2022Argued. For state petitioners: Lindsay S. See, Solicitor General, Charleston, W. Va. For private petitioners: Jacob M. Roth, Washington, D. C. For federal respondents: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For power company respondents: Beth S. Brinkmann, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
- Jan 18 2022CIRCULATED
- Dec 23 2021The record from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer. The oral argument transcript has been electronically filed.
- Dec 21 2021Record requested from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.
- Dec 17 2021ARGUMENT SET FOR Monday, February 28, 2022. VIDED.
- Nov 04 2021Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 20-1530. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 20-1530. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
- Oct 29 2021Petition GRANTED limited to Question 2 presented by the petition. The petitions for writs of certiorari in No. 20-1530, No. 20-1531, and No. 20-1780 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The motion of Lignite Energy Council for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 20-1780 is granted. VIDED.
- Oct 25 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/29/2021.
- Oct 12 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.
- Oct 04 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.
- Aug 25 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
- Aug 24 2021Reply of petitioner Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 05 2021Brief of respondents Consolidated Edison, Inc., Exelon Corporation, National Grid USA, New York Power Authority, Power Companies Climate Coalition, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District in opposition filed. VIDED.
- Aug 05 2021Brief of respondents Non-Governmental Organization and Trade Association Respondents in opposition filed. VIDED.
- Aug 05 2021Brief of respondents Federal respondents in opposition filed. VIDED.
- Aug 05 2021Brief of respondents States and Municipalities in opposition filed. VIDED.
- Jul 23 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 5, 2021, for all respondents.
- Jul 22 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 23, 2021 to August 5, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 22 2021Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.
- Jun 25 2021Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC
- Jun 18 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 23, 2021)