Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

State to which EPA could not apply its FIP.  See §7410(c)(1).  
Ultimately, EPA recognized that it could not apply its FIP 
to 12 of the 23 original States.7  Together, these 12 States 
accounted  for  over  70  percent  of  the  emissions  EPA  had 
planned  to  address  through  its  FIP.    See  Application  for 
Ohio et al. in No. 23A349, p. 1 (States’ Application); see also 
88 Fed. Reg. 36738–36739.8 
  A  number  of  the remaining  States  and  industry  groups 
challenged  the  remnants  of  the  FIP  in  the  D. C.  Circuit.  
They pointed to the Act’s provisions authorizing a court to 
“reverse any . . . action” taken in connection with a FIP that 
is “arbitrary” or “capricious.”  §7607(d)(9)(A).  And they ar-
gued that EPA’s decision to apply the FIP to them even af-
ter so many other States had dropped out met that stand-
ard.  As part of their challenge, they asked that court to stay 
any effort to enforce the FIP against them while their ap-
peal unfolded.  After that court denied relief, the applicants 
renewed  their  request  here.    The  Court  has  received  and 
reviewed over 400 pages of briefing and a voluminous rec-
ord,  held over an hour of oral argument on the applications, 
and  engaged  in  months  of  postargument  deliberations  as 
we often do for the cases we hear. 

II 
A 
  Stay applications are nothing new.  They seek a form of 
interim relief perhaps “as old as the judicial system of the 
nation.”  Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U. S. 4, 
17  (1942).   Like  any  other federal  court faced with  a  stay 
—————— 

7 See 88 Fed. Reg. 49295 (2023) (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mis-
sissippi, Missouri, and Texas); 88 Fed. Reg. 67102 (2023) (Alabama, Min-
nesota,  Nevada,  Oklahoma, Utah,  and  West  Virginia).   EPA  has  since 
proposed settling the litigation over the Nevada SIP disapproval.  89 Fed. 
Reg. 35091 (2024). 

8 Of course, this could change again as litigation over the SIP denials 
progresses past preliminary stay litigation and toward final decisions on 
the merits.