Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 28

6 

OHIO v. EPA 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

“[1] reasonable and [2] reasonably explained.”  FCC v. Pro-
metheus  Radio  Project,  592  U. S.  414,  423  (2021).    The 
Court’s theory is that EPA did not “ ‘reasonably explai[n] ’ ” 
“why the number and identity of participating States does 
not  affect  what  measures  maximize  cost-effective  down-
wind air-quality improvement.”  Ante, at 13 (quoting only 
the second part of Prometheus Radio’s formulation (empha-
sis added)).  So to be clear, the Court does not conclude that 
EPA’s  actions were  substantively  unreasonable—e.g., that 
the  FIP  cannot  rationally  be  applied  to  fewer  States  be-
cause a change in the number of participants would under-
mine  its  rationale  or  render  it  ineffective.    Nor  could  it, 
given the significant evidence in the record (not to mention 
EPA’s denial of reconsideration) that the covered States did 
not,  in  fact,  affect  the  plan’s  emissions-reduction  obliga-
tions.    See  Part  II–B,  infra.    Thus,  the  only  basis  for  the 
Court’s decision is the argument that EPA failed to provide 
“ ‘a satisfactory explanation for its action’ ” and a “reasoned 
response” to comments.  Ante, at 12–13 (quoting Motor Ve-
hicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. 
Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43 (1983)).  There are at 
least three major barriers to success on such a claim. 

A 
  The Clean Air Act imposes a procedural bar on the chal-
lenges  that  a  plaintiff  can  bring  in  court:  Only  objections 
that were “raised with reasonable specificity during the pe-
riod for public comment . . . may be raised during judicial 
review.”    §7607(d)(7)(B).    If  it  was  “impracticable  to  raise 
such objection within such time or if the grounds for such 
objection  arose  after  the  period  for  public  comment,”  the 
challenger may petition for reconsideration of the rule and 
can obtain judicial review only if EPA refuses.  Ibid.  While 
EPA  has  now  separately  denied  petitions  for  reconsidera-
tion  of  the  Good  Neighbor  Plan,  this  case  came  to  us  di-
rectly; we are assessing applicants’ likelihood of success in