Supreme Court Puts White House's Carbon Pollution Limits On Hold

Enlarge this image toggle caption Charlie Riedel/AP Charlie Riedel/AP

The heart of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan is now on hold, after the Supreme Court granted a stay request that blocks the EPA from moving ahead with rules that would lower carbon emissions from the nation's power plants.

The case is scheduled to be argued in June, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But a decision could be long in coming, particularly if the case winds up in the Supreme Court — meaning that the rules' fate might not be determined before a new presidential administration comes into power in 2017.

Announced in its final form last August, the Clean Power Plan aims to reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution from power plants, which the EPA says generate 32 percent of total carbon emissions. The plan sets a range of new national standards, with deadlines ranging from 2022 to 2030.

NPR's Scott Horsley reports for our Newscast unit:

"More than two-dozen states went to court to challenge the EPA's action, and in a surprise 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court agreed to block the measure — at least until an appeals court can hear arguments in the case this summer. "Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, who represents Kentucky — a leading coal-producing state — cheered the high court's action. Environmental groups blasted the decision, but say they're confident the EPA's action will ultimately be upheld."

The White House says it disagrees with the decision, adding, "We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits."

Speaking on today's Morning Edition, Scott says, "There's no question they were caught off-guard by this decision, which could be seen as an ominous sign for the president's broader climate agenda."

Supreme Court Puts White House's Carbon Pollution Limits On Hold Listen · 2:25 2:25

The order putting the Clean Power Plan on hold comes more than six months after the Supreme Court blocked an Obama administration initiative that limited toxic mercury emissions from power plants, agreeing with states and industry groups that argued that the EPA had interpreted its rule "unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants."

In that 5-4 decision, the court divided along the same lines seen in the decision over the stay blocking the Clean Power Plan, with Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito ruling in favor and Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor dissenting.

From the SCOTUSblog website comes this summary of the arguments in the case: