Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

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

23 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

It remains applicants’ burden to show that the FIP’s alleged 
dependence on the covered States likely was an “important” 
problem that EPA “entirely failed to consider.”  State Farm, 
463 U. S., at 43.  And that is on top of their burden to over-
come §7607(d)(7)(B)’s procedural bar and the lack of “signif-
icant,” specific comments raising this issue.  §7607(d)(6)(B).   
  Finally,  I  would  exercise  our  discretion  to  consider 
§7607(d)(8)’s  harmless-error  rule.   Even  putting  aside the 
expedited  briefing  schedule  and  the  limited  discussion  of 
the Court’s theory in applicants’ briefs, applicants bear the 
burden in seeking emergency relief to show a likelihood of 
success  on  the  merits.    In  other  words,  we  must  predict 
whether applicants will overcome every barrier to relief at 
the end of the day, after full merits briefing and argument 
in  the  lower  courts  and,  potentially,  again  in  this  Court.  
Section  7607(d)(8)’s  harmless-error  rule  is  one  such  im-
portant obstacle, and EPA has already signaled that it will 
raise it as litigation progresses.  See Denial 35, n. 38 (argu-
ing that any failure to more fully explain “how the Rule is 
not interdependent” is harmless error under §7607(d)(8)).  I 
see no reason not to consider it now. 

III 
  Given the emergency posture of this litigation, my views 
on  the  merits  of  the  failure-to-explain  objection  and  the 
application  of  the  Clean  Air  Act’s  procedural  bar  and 
harmless-error rule are tentative.  But even a tentative ad-
verse  conclusion  can  undermine  applicants’  likelihood  of 
success.    And  applicants,  to  prevail,  must  run  the  table; 
they face the daunting task of surmounting all of these sig-
nificant obstacles.  They are unlikely to succeed. 
  The Court, seizing on a barely briefed failure-to-explain 
theory, grants relief anyway.  It enjoins the Good Neighbor 
Plan’s enforcement against any state or industry applicant 
pending review in the D. C. Circuit and any petition for cer-