Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

14 

WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

II 
We first consider the Government’s contention that no pe-

titioner has Article III standing to seek our review. 

Although most disputes over standing concern whether a
plaintiff has satisfied the requirement when filing suit, “Ar-
ticle  III  demands  that  an  actual  controversy  persist
throughout all stages of litigation.”  Hollingsworth v. Perry, 
570 U. S. 693, 705 (2013) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  The requirement of standing “must be met by persons
seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons 
appearing in courts of first instance.”  Arizonans for Official 
English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 64 (1997).  In considering 
a  litigant’s  standing  to  appeal,  the  question  is  whether  it 
has experienced an injury “fairly traceable to the judgment 
below.”  Food  Marketing  Institute  v.  Argus  Leader  Media, 
588  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2019)  (slip  op.,  at  4)  (emphasis  added; 
internal quotation marks omitted).  If so, and a “favorable 
ruling”  from  the  appellate  court  “would  redress  [that]  in-
jury,” then the appellant has a cognizable Article III stake. 
Ibid. 

Here,  it  is  apparent  that  at  least  one  group  of  petition-
ers—the state petitioners—are injured by the Court of Ap-
peals’ judgment.  That judgment vacated “the ACE rule and 
its embedded repeal of the Clean Power Plan,” 985 F. 3d, at 
995  (emphasis  added),  and  accordingly  purports  to  bring
the Clean Power Plan back into legal effect.  Thus, to the 
extent  the  Clean  Power  Plan  harms  the  States,  the  D. C. 
Circuit’s judgment inflicts the same injury.  And there can 
be  “little  question”  that  the  rule  does  injure  the  States,
since they are “the object of ” its requirement that they more
stringently  regulate  power  plant  emissions  within  their 
borders.  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 561– 
562 (1992).

The  Government  counters  that  “agency  and  judicial  ac-
tions”  subsequent  to  the  court’s  entry  of  judgment  have 
“eliminated any . . . possibility” of injury.  Brief for Federal