Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

24 

OHIO v. EPA 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

tiorari.    Ante,  at  19.    Given  the  number  of  companies  in-
cluded and the timelines for review, the Court’s injunction 
leaves large swaths of upwind States free to keep contrib-
uting  significantly  to  their  downwind  neighbors’  ozone 
problems for the next several years—even though the tem-
porarily stayed SIP disapprovals may all be upheld and the 
FIP may yet cover all the original States.  The Court justi-
fies this decision based on an alleged procedural error that 
likely had no impact on the plan.  So its theory would re-
quire  EPA  only  to  confirm  what  we  already  know:  EPA 
would have promulgated the same plan even if fewer States 
were covered.  Rather than require this years-long exercise 
in futility, the equities counsel restraint. 
  Our emergency docket requires us to evaluate quickly the 
merits  of  applications  without  the  benefit  of  full  briefing 
and reasoned lower court opinions.  See Does 1–3, 595 U. S., 
at ___ (opinion of BARRETT, J.).  Given those limitations, we 
should proceed all the more cautiously in cases like this one 
with voluminous, technical records and thorny legal ques-
tions.  I respectfully dissent.