Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 13

10 

OHIO v. EPA 

Opinion of the Court 

request, we must provide the applicants with an answer—
“grant or deny.”  Labrador v. Poe, 601 U. S. ___, ___ (2024) 
(KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in grant of stay) (slip op., at 2). 
  In  deciding whether  to issue  a  stay,  we  apply the same 
“sound  . . .  principles”  as  other  federal  courts.    Nken  v. 
Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  Specifically, in this litigation, we ask (1) whether 
the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) whether 
it will suffer irreparable injury without a stay, (3) whether 
the  stay  will  substantially  injure  the  other  parties  inter-
ested in the proceedings, and (4) where the public interest 
lies.  Ibid.; States’ Application 13; Response in Opposition 
for  Respondent  EPA  in  No.  23A349  etc.,  p.  16  (EPA  Re-
sponse).9 
  When States and other parties seek to stay the enforce-
ment of a federal regulation against them, often “the harms 
and equities [will be] very weighty on both sides.”  Labra-
dor, 601 U. S., at ___ (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (slip op., 
at 3).  That is certainly the case here, for both sides have 
strong arguments with respect to the latter three Nken fac-
tors.    On  one  side  of  the  ledger,  the  federal  government 
points  to  the  air-quality  benefits  its  FIP  offers  downwind 
States.  EPA Response 48–50.  On the other side, the States 
observe that a FIP issued unlawfully (as they contend this 
one  was)  necessarily  impairs  their  sovereign  interests  in 
regulating their own industries and citizens—interests the 
Act expressly recognizes.  See Part I–A, supra; States’ Ap-
plication  24–26;  Maryland  v.  King,  567  U. S.  1301,  1303 
(2012) (ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers).  The States observe, 
too,  that  having  to  comply  with  the  FIP  during  the  pen-
dency of this litigation risks placing them at a “competitive 

—————— 

9 Approaching  the  applications  before  us  like  any  other  stay  request 
both accords with the Clean Air Act’s text, see 42 U. S. C. §7607(d), and 
usual  practice in  this  field, see,  e.g.,  Texas  v.  EPA,  829  F. 3d  405,  424 
(CA5 2016); West Virginia v. EPA, 90 F. 4th 323, 331 (CA4 2024); In re 
Murray Energy Corp., 788 F. 3d 330, 335 (CADC 2015).