“The Un-Neighborly Dispute Over the EPA's Good Neighbor Clause"
In late February of 2024, the Supreme Court emboldened by its conservative predisposition was increasingly wary of the Environmental Protection Agency as the organization tried to maintain decades of legal precedent to continue enforcing the “Good Neighbor” proviso.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act, colloquially referred to as the “Good Neighbor” provision, was crafted with inherently federalist principles. Due to growing concerns over climate change, the EPA implemented the provision to essentially put the onus of legal responsibility on states to actively address interstate air pollution. More specifically the rule itself aims to significantly reduce industrial emissions that cross downwind into other states. The “Good Neighbor” provision mandates the creation of various interstate emissions containment plans to categorically ensure that air pollution does not cross state lines, consequently worsening a neighboring state’s air quality standards. Therefore, as an independent federal agency, the EPA has played a central role in overseeing and enforcing the provision across a multitude of states.
As one might imagine, the "Good Neighbor" clause has been a contentious one. In fact, most recently, there has been a coalition of states such as Ohio and Indiana coupled with smokestack emission emitters such as the steel and oil industries that have attacked the rule. This has been on the grounds of it being excessively punitive among a multitude of other grievances. Therefore as the EPA seeks to enforce emission regulations, they have found themselves in a litigious cage match with high-yield energy-producing states alongside related industries seeking to protect economic interests. Due to the ongoing battle, the “Good Neighbor” rule has essentially become moot and is unenforced in several states as it awaits its final verdict in front of the Supreme Court.
Over the past few decades, many states with energy production interests alongside resource extraction industries have become increasingly ensnared in a complex legal web. During the last two decades of the twenty-first century, there have been a multitude of landmark cases strengthening the EPA’s power and legal capabilities. One particularly significant one was Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). In a divisive 5-4 ruling for the EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the agency did, in fact, possess the authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollutants from automobiles under the purview of the Clean Air Act. This watershed ruling legally empowered the EPA’s authority when it came to air pollution disputes with states and automobile manufacturers.
More recent legal challenges launched by associated energy and resource extraction industries contend that the EPA has abused its authority regarding the provision. Many of these cases see contestation regarding the statutory language cited by the EPA while questioning the legitimacy of its enforcement power. In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), the Court established the “Chevron deference” and ruled that both agencies and courts must follow congressional legislation when such laws are clear and unambiguous. When legislation has more than one reasonable interpretation, though, courts must defer to the reasonable choices of the agencies Congress has tasked with administering those laws, like the EPA. This ruling explicitly granted agencies with the extended power to interpret ambiguous congressional statutes and, as a result, has played an important role in ongoing legal battles between the EPA and the abovementioned opposition parties.
Despite the abovementioned long-standing legal precedence that the Supreme Court has established, the ideological majority of this current Supreme Court is expected to curry favor with more deregulatory and laissez-faire activity. In fact, this is not the first time this specific court has ruled in such a way that resulted in the curtailment of federal power. In fact, in 2022 the court dealt a massive blow to the EPA as the court in a 6-3 decision ruled that the EPA did not possess the power to regulate power plant emissions. Alongside energy concerns, the court also ruled federal mask mandates unconstitutional and opposed regulations for “cause” when it came to owning firearms as per the Second Amendment constitutional right.
More specifically, the conservative justices voiced umbridge with EPA as their “Good Neighbor” plan arbitrarily included twenty-three states that would participate in trying to lower emissions. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed that “EPA came back and said, ‘Even if we have fewer states, we’re going to plow ahead anyway,’” which showcased the Justices’ qualms about the EPA operating with unchecked impunity. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed similar feelings when he stated that “what (states) are asking for is simply an opportunity to make the argument before the agency,″ when speaking about state participation being forced. Justice Neil Gorsuch also displayed uncertainty about the EPA’s control over state participation when it comes to following regulatory frameworks to curb emissions.
Therefore, it appears evident that over the last four decades, the U.S. legal landscape has come to reflect increasing societal and legal attention towards environmental protection and consciousness regarding climate change. However, the court’s conservative tilt coupled with state and industry vested interests seems primed to reconsider even the most stalwart of environmental legal protections.
Aditya Lodha is a third-year student at Brown University who is currently pursuing a concentration in History with a focus in law and society. He is a staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at: aditya_lodha@brown.edu!
Jack Tajmajer is a senior at Brown University concentrating in Political Science and Economics. He is an editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at jack_tajmajer@brown.edu.