Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

1 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 23A349, 23A350, 23A351 and 23A384 
_________________ 

23A349 

OHIO, ET AL. 
v. 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. 

23A350 

KINDER MORGAN, INC., ET AL. 
v. 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. 

23A351 

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION, ET AL. 
v. 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. 

23A384 

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION 
v. 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. 

ON APPLICATIONS FOR STAY 

[June 27, 2024] 

  JUSTICE  BARRETT,  with  whom  JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR, 
JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. 
  The Court today enjoins the enforcement of a major En-
vironmental Protection Agency rule based on an underde-
veloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits.  In 
so  doing,  the  Court  grants  emergency  relief  in  a  fact- 
intensive and highly technical case without fully engaging 
with  both  the  relevant  law  and  the  voluminous  record.  
While the Court suggests that the EPA failed to explain it-
self sufficiently in response to comments, this theory must 
surmount sizable procedural obstacles and contrary record