Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

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

5 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

should not be implemented in just a subset of the original 
States.    EPA  denied  these  petitions  on  April  4,  2024.    89 
Fed. Reg. 23526.  It thoroughly explained how its “method-
ology for defining” each State’s emissions obligations is “in-
dependent of the number of states included in the Plan” be-
cause  it  “relies  on  a  determination  regarding  what 
emissions reductions each type of regulated source can cost-
effectively achieve.”  EPA, Basis for Partial Denial of Peti-
tions  for  Reconsideration  on  Scope  1,  (EPA–HQ–OAR–
2021–0668–1255, Apr. 2024) (Denial).  The “control technol-
ogies  and  cost-effectiveness  figures  the  EPA  consider[ed] 
. . . do not depend in any way on the number of states in-
cluded.”  Id., at 2.  So “[s]ources in the remaining upwind 
states currently regulated by the Plan . . . would bear the 
same  actual  emission  reduction  obligations”  regardless  of 
the number of covered States.  Id., at 3–4. 

II 
  To  obtain  emergency  relief,  applicants  must,  at  a  mini-
mum,  show  that  they  are  likely  to  succeed  on  the  merits, 
that they will be irreparably injured absent a stay, and that 
the  balance  of  the  equities  favors  them.    Nken  v.  Holder, 
556 U. S. 418, 425–426 (2009).  Moreover, we should grant 
relief only if we would be likely to grant certiorari were the 
applicants’ case to come to us in the usual course.  See Does 
1–3 v. Mills, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (BARRETT, J., concur-
ring  in  denial  of  application  for  injunctive  relief );  Hol-
lingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam).  
In my view, the applicants cannot satisfy the stay factors.  
Most significantly, they have not shown a likelihood of suc-
cess on the merits. 
  The Court holds that applicants are likely to succeed on 
a claim that the Good Neighbor Plan is “arbitrary” or “ca-
pricious.”    42  U. S. C.  §7607(d)(9).    The  “arbitrary-and-
capricious  standard  requires  that  agency  action”  be  both