{"id":335154,"date":"2024-06-29T09:15:42","date_gmt":"2024-06-29T07:15:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=335154"},"modified":"2024-06-29T09:15:45","modified_gmt":"2024-06-29T07:15:45","slug":"ohio-v-epa-read-the-full-supreme-court-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=335154","title":{"rendered":"Ohio v EPA read the full Supreme Court Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"723\" height=\"723\" data-attachment-id=\"335158\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=335158\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?fit=1200%2C1200&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"1200,1200\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"image-692\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?fit=723%2C723&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=723%2C723&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-335158\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=1024%2C1024&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=300%2C300&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=768%2C768&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=800%2C800&amp;ssl=1 800w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=600%2C600&amp;ssl=1 600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=400%2C400&amp;ssl=1 400w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=200%2C200&amp;ssl=1 200w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=450%2C450&amp;ssl=1 450w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=60%2C60&amp;ssl=1 60w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=550%2C550&amp;ssl=1 550w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?w=1200&amp;ssl=1 1200w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 723px) 100vw, 723px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cfact.org\/2024\/06\/27\/ohio-v-epa-read-the-full-supreme-court-decision\/\">CFACT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.cfact.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Ohio-v-EPA-Supreme-Court-6-27-24.pdf\"><strong>Read the full Supreme Court Decision at CFACT.org<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div data-wp-interactive=\"core\/file\" class=\"wp-block-file\"><object data-wp-bind--hidden=\"!state.hasPdfPreview\" hidden class=\"wp-block-file__embed\" data=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Ohio-v-EPA-Supreme-Court-6-27-24.pdf\" type=\"application\/pdf\" style=\"width:100%;height:600px\" aria-label=\"Embed of Ohio-v-EPA-Supreme-Court-6-27-24.\"><\/object><a id=\"wp-block-file--media-b69c36f6-65a8-47b8-80a5-3a1903cecdd2\" href=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Ohio-v-EPA-Supreme-Court-6-27-24.pdf\">Ohio-v-EPA-Supreme-Court-6-27-24<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Ohio-v-EPA-Supreme-Court-6-27-24.pdf\" class=\"wp-block-file__button wp-element-button\" download aria-describedby=\"wp-block-file--media-b69c36f6-65a8-47b8-80a5-3a1903cecdd2\">Herunterladen<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cThis is a significant victory for states\u2019 sovereignty and the rule of law. This plan, if implemented, would have imposed undue regulatory burdens on states \u2013 and the EPA doesn\u2019t have the power to do that\u2026 We are committed to defending the prerogatives of states against federal encroachment.\u201d&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov\/Media\/News-Releases\/June-2024\/U-S-Supreme-Court-Agrees-with-Yost%E2%80%99s-Challenge-Put\">Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>From Nick Pope at&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/dailycaller.com\/2024\/06\/27\/supreme-court-ohio-epa\/\">Daily Caller<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court temporarily blocked an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plan to limit ozone pollution that drifts across state lines on Thursday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court ruled to temporarily block the EPA\u2019s&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/dailycaller.com\/2023\/03\/15\/biden-epa-midwest-factory-power-plant-crackdown\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">\u201cgood neighbor\u201d rule<\/a>&nbsp;for ozone, which the agency originally intended to impose on 23 states via complex regulatory processes. The stay will remain in place as litigation over the rule plays out in lower courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court decided to block the rule by a 5-4 vote, with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elana Kagan dissenting. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court\u2019s opinion and was joined in the majority by Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.cfact.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Ohio-v-EPA-Supreme-Court-6-27-24.pdf\"><strong>Read the full Supreme Court Decision at CFACT.org<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Supreme Court Syllabus \/ Summary:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"723\" height=\"723\" data-attachment-id=\"335158\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=335158\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?fit=1200%2C1200&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"1200,1200\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-meta=\"{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}\" data-image-title=\"image-692\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?fit=723%2C723&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=723%2C723&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-335158\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=1024%2C1024&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=300%2C300&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1 150w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=768%2C768&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=800%2C800&amp;ssl=1 800w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=600%2C600&amp;ssl=1 600w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=400%2C400&amp;ssl=1 400w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=200%2C200&amp;ssl=1 200w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=450%2C450&amp;ssl=1 450w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=60%2C60&amp;ssl=1 60w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?resize=550%2C550&amp;ssl=1 550w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?w=1200&amp;ssl=1 1200w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 723px) 100vw, 723px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\"><strong>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES<\/strong><br><strong>Syllabus<\/strong><br><strong>OHIO ET AL v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION<\/strong><br><strong>AGENCY ET AL<\/strong><br><strong>ON APPLICATIONS FOR STAY<\/strong><br><strong>No. 23A349. Argued February 21, 2024\u2014Decided June 27, 2024<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Clean Air Act envisions a collaborative effort between States and the<br>federal government to regulate air quality. When the Environmental<br>Protection Agency sets standards for common air pollutants, States<br>must submit a State Implementation Plan, or SIP, providing for the<br>\u201cimplementation, maintenance, and enforcement\u201d of those standards<br>in their jurisdictions. See 42 U. S. C. \u00a77410(a)(1). Because air currents<br>can carry pollution across state borders, States must also design their<br>plans with neighboring States in mind. Under the Act\u2019s \u201cGood Neigh-<br>bor Provision,\u201d state plans must prohibit emissions \u201cin amounts which<br>will . . . contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with<br>maintenance by, any other State\u201d of the relevant air-quality standard.<br>\u00a77410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Only if a SIP fails to satisfy the \u201capplicable re-<br>quirements\u201d of the Act may EPA issue a Federal Implementation Plan,<br>or FIP, for the noncompliant State that fails to correct the deficiencies<br>in its SIP. \u00a7\u00a77410(k)(3), (c)(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2015, EPA revised its air-quality standards for ozone, thus trig-<br>gering a requirement for States to submit new SIPs. Years later, EPA<br>announced its intention to disapprove over 20 SIPs because the agency<br>believed they had failed to address adequately obligations under the<br>Good Neighbor Provision. During the public-comment period for the<br>proposed SIP disapprovals, EPA issued a single proposed FIP to bind all those States. EPA designed its proposed FIP based on which emissions-control measures would maximize cost-effectiveness in improving ozone levels downwind and on the assumption the FIP would apply to all covered States. Commenters warned that the proposed SIP disapprovals were flawed and that a failure to achieve all the SIP disapprovals as EPA envisioned would mean that EPA would need to reassess the measures necessary to maximize cost-effective ozone-level improvements in light of a different set of States. EPA proceeded to issue its final FIP without addressing this concern. Instead, EPA announced that its plan was severable: Should any jurisdiction drop out,<br>the plan would continue to apply unchanged to the remaining jurisdictions. Ongoing litigation over the SIP disapprovals soon vindicated at least some of the commenters\u2019 concerns. Courts stayed 12 of the SIP disapprovals, which meant EPA could not apply its FIP to those States. A number of the remaining States and industry groups challenged the FIP in the D. C. Circuit. They argued that EPA\u2019s decision to apply the FIP after so many other States had dropped out was \u201carbitrary\u201d or \u201ccapricious,\u201d and they asked the court to stay any effort to enforce the FIP against them while their appeal unfolded. The D.C. Circuit denied relief, and the parties renewed their request in this Court.<br>Held: The applications for a stay are granted; enforcement of EPA\u2019s rule<br>against the applicants shall be stayed pending the disposition of the<br>applicants\u2019 petition for review in the D. C. Circuit and any petition for<br>writ of certiorari, timely sought. Pp. 9\u201320.<br>(a) When deciding an application for a stay, the Court asks (1)<br>whether the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) whether it<br>will suffer irreparable injury without a stay, (3) whether the stay will<br>substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings,<br>and (4) where the public interest lies. Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418,<br>434. When States and other parties seek to stay the enforcement of a<br>federal regulation against them, often \u201cthe harms and equities [will<br>be] very weighty on both sides.\u201d Labrador v. Poe, 601 U. S. ___, ___<br>(KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in grant of stay). Because that is true<br>here, resolution of applicants\u2019 stay request ultimately turns on the first<br>question: Who is likely to prevail at the end. See Nken, 556 U. S., at<br>434. Pp. 9\u201311.<br>(b) Applicants are likely to prevail on their arbitrary-or-capricious<br>claim. An agency action qualifies as \u201carbitrary\u201d or \u201ccapricious\u201d if it is<br>not \u201creasonable and reasonably explained.\u201d FCC v. Prometheus Radio<br>Project, 592 U. S. 414, 423. Thus, the agency must offer \u201ca satisfactory<br>explanation for its action[,] including a rational connection between<br>the facts found and the choice made\u201d and cannot simply ignore \u201can im-<br>portant aspect of the problem.\u201d Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United<br>States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">EPA\u2019s plan rested on an assumption that all the upwind States would<br>adopt emissions-reduction measures up to a uniform level of costs to<br>the point of diminishing returns.&nbsp;Commenters posed their concerns<br>that if upwind States fell out of the planned FIP, the point at which<br>emissions-control measures maximize cost-effective downwind air-<br>quality improvements might shift.&nbsp;To this question, EPA offered no<br>reasoned response. As a result, the applicants are likely to prevail on<br>their argument that EPA\u2019s final rule was not \u201creasonably explained,\u201d<br>Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U. S., at 423, and that it instead ignored \u201can important aspect of the problem\u201d before it,&nbsp;State Farm Mut.<br>Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S., at 43. Pp. 11\u201313.<br>(c) EPA\u2019s alternative arguments are unavailing.&nbsp;First, EPA argues<br>that adding a \u201cseverability\u201d provision to its final rule\u2014i.e.,&nbsp;providing<br>the FIP would \u201ccontinue to be implemented\u201d without regard to the<br>number of States remaining\u2014responded to commenters\u2019 concerns.<br>But EPA\u2019s response did not address those concerns so much as it side-<br>stepped them.&nbsp;Nothing in the final rule\u2019s severability provision actually addressed whether and how measures found to maximize cost-effectiveness in achieving downwind ozone air-quality improvements&nbsp;with the participation of all the upwind States remain so when many&nbsp;fewer States might be subject to the agency\u2019s plan.&nbsp;Second, EPA insists that no one raised that concern during the public comment period.&nbsp;The Act\u2019s \u201creasonable specificity\u201d requirement, however, does not&nbsp;mean a party must rehearse the identical argument made before the&nbsp;agency. Here, EPA had notice of the objection, and its own statements&nbsp;and actions confirm the agency appreciated the concern.&nbsp;Third, EPA&nbsp;argues that applicants must return to EPA and file a motion asking it&nbsp;to reconsider its final rule before presenting their objection in court&nbsp;because the \u201cgrounds for [their] objection arose after the period for<br>public comment.\u201d&nbsp;\u00a77607(d)(7)(B).&nbsp;Nothing requires the applicants to&nbsp;return to EPA to raise (again) a concern EPA already had a chance to&nbsp;address. Pp. 13\u201317.<br>Applications for stay granted.<br>GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS&nbsp;,<br>C. J., and THOMAS&nbsp;, ALITO, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BARRETT&nbsp;, J., filed&nbsp;a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR&nbsp;, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ.,&nbsp;joined<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.cfact.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Ohio-v-EPA-Supreme-Court-6-27-24.pdf\"><strong>Read the full Supreme Court Decision at CFACT.org<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cThis is a significant victory for states\u2019 sovereignty and the rule of law. This plan, if implemented, would have imposed undue regulatory burdens on states \u2013 and the EPA doesn\u2019t have the power to do that\u2026 We are committed to defending the prerogatives of states against federal encroachment.\u201d  Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":335158,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818073,691826297,691829466,691818670,691829467],"class_list":{"0":"post-335154","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-epa","9":"tag-ohio","10":"tag-ohio-attorney-general-dave-yost","11":"tag-supreme-court","12":"tag-the-clean-air-act","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/image-692.png?fit=1200%2C1200&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1pbI","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":292313,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=292313","url_meta":{"origin":335154,"position":0},"title":"SCOTUS Will Hear Challenge To One Of EPA\u2019s Most Stringent Proposed Climate Regs","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"22\/12\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will hear challenges against one of the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) key regulatory proposals.","rel":"","context":"In \"Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA)\"","block_context":{"text":"Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=environmental-protection-agencys-epa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0iStock-1130974196-1024x683-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0iStock-1130974196-1024x683-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0iStock-1130974196-1024x683-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0iStock-1130974196-1024x683-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206528,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206528","url_meta":{"origin":335154,"position":1},"title":"All Eyes on SCOTUS: Supreme Court to Issue Climate Endangerment Finding Ruling \u2013 To Decide if EPA, or Congress, has authority to regulate CO2","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/06\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"From Climate Depot The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).The primary plaintiff of the case is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey; he is joined by attorney generals from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":335386,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=335386","url_meta":{"origin":335154,"position":2},"title":"A Supreme Court victory over bureaucratic overreach","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/07\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Today, the Supreme Court ruled, on a crucial matter of first impression, that presidents are immune from prosecution for engaging in their official duties. This was a welcomed decision that will put up broad guideposts to keep the three branches of government from encroaching on each other.","rel":"","context":"In \"Chevron\"","block_context":{"text":"Chevron","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=chevron"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Supreme-Court-2022.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Supreme-Court-2022.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Supreme-Court-2022.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Supreme-Court-2022.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/0Supreme-Court-2022.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206835,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206835","url_meta":{"origin":335154,"position":3},"title":"Alarmist dismay as US Supreme Court rules against EPA on climate regulation powers","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/07\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Verdict [image credit: coindesk.com] Democracy overseeing the flow of EPA climate edicts? A \u201ahuge blow\u2018, say alarmists, as\u00a0over-the-top reactions\u00a0from some of the usual suspects pour in.\u2013 \u2013 \u2013This means Congress will now have to pass off on any climate regulations,\u00a0says Energy Live News. In what\u2019s been considered a blow to\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Screenshot-2022-07-02-205905.png?fit=836%2C518&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Screenshot-2022-07-02-205905.png?fit=836%2C518&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Screenshot-2022-07-02-205905.png?fit=836%2C518&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Screenshot-2022-07-02-205905.png?fit=836%2C518&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277341,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=277341","url_meta":{"origin":335154,"position":4},"title":"EPA issues new WOTUS rule after Supreme Court slap down","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/09\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Bowing to the unwelcome reality of the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s landmark\u00a0Sackett v. EPA\u00a0ruling, Biden administration officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers on Aug. 29 issued a final rule on their joint jurisdiction over \u201cWaters of the United States\u201d (WOTUS) under the Clean Water\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Clean Water Act\"","block_context":{"text":"Clean Water Act","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=clean-water-act"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0glauber-sampaio-FkNzeOnsA0g-unsplash-1536x1024-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0glauber-sampaio-FkNzeOnsA0g-unsplash-1536x1024-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0glauber-sampaio-FkNzeOnsA0g-unsplash-1536x1024-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0glauber-sampaio-FkNzeOnsA0g-unsplash-1536x1024-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0glauber-sampaio-FkNzeOnsA0g-unsplash-1536x1024-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206906,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206906","url_meta":{"origin":335154,"position":5},"title":"Supreme Court Issues Pro-Science &#038; Democracy Ruling on CO2: Morano: \u2018One Small Step for Climate Sanity, One Giant Leap for Democracy\u2019","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/07\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"EPA loses \u2013 America Wins\u2019: Supreme Court rules against overreach by EPA Climate Depot\u2019s Morano: \u201cThat\u2019s one small step for climate sanity, one giant leap for democracy.\u00a0Today\u2019s Supreme Court ruling reigning in the power of the unelected bureaucracy to essentially regulate every aspect of the American economy under the guise\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/image-20.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/image-20.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/image-20.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/image-20.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=335154"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":335161,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/335154\/revisions\/335161"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/335158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=335154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=335154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=335154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}