An increase in emergency petitions this summer at the US Supreme Court has the potential to derail the Biden administration’s air emissions plans, while opening the floodgates for challengers to launch similar campaigns against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to regulate air pollution. Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket” has become a battleground where industry, states, and other interest groups are leveraging emergency stay applications to halt federal regulations without the extensive briefing and oral arguments typical of the Court’s main docket.
Key Biden administration actions, including regulations on power plant emissions, mercury standards, and methane limits, are at risk. These regulations aim to reduce air toxics and combat climate change. However, Republican-led states, companies, and industry groups argue that these EPA rules stifle innovation and exert undue pressure on business operations. For instance, the EPA recently urged the Supreme Court to block a bid to freeze its power plant rule, while power companies had earlier dropped a similar attempt regarding high-court stay of mercury rule, as noted in the full Bloomberg article.
Legal professionals closely monitoring these developments should recognize the implications of the shadow docket’s increased utilization. The outcomes could significantly influence not only the administration’s environmental policies but also the broader scope of regulatory powers held by federal agencies.
The sharp rise in emergency petitions underscores a strategic shift, with significant ramifications for regulatory frameworks and business compliance standards. Legal teams within corporations and law firms must now consider the growing volatility in administrative rulemaking, where judicial interventions could swiftly alter the landscape without the traditional deliberative processes.