Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23a349_0813.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

disadvantage”  to  their  exempt  peers.    States’  Application 
21.  The States and the private applicants also stress that 
complying with the FIP during the pendency of this litiga-
tion would require them to incur “hundreds of millions[,] if 
not billions of dollars.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. 96.  Those costs, the 
applicants note, are “nonrecoverable.”  Thunder Basin Coal 
Co. v. Reich, 510 U. S. 200, 220–221 (1994) (Scalia, J., con-
curring  in  part  and  concurring  in  judgment);  see,  e.g., 
States’ Application 24; Application for American Forest & 
Paper Association et al. 25; see also Alabama Assn. of Real-
tors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594 U. S. 
758, 765 (2021) (per curiam). 
  Because each side has strong arguments about the harms 
they face and equities involved, our resolution of these stay 
requests  ultimately  turns  on  the  merits  and  the  question 
who  is  likely  to  prevail  at  the  end  of  this  litigation.    See 
Nken, 556 U. S., at 434; Labrador, 601 U. S., at ___ (opinion 
of KAVANAUGH, J.) (slip op., at 4). 

B 
  When it comes to that question, the parties agree on the 
rules that guide our analysis.  The applicants argue that a 
court is likely to hold EPA’s final FIP “arbitrary” or “capri-
cious” within the meaning of the Act and thus enjoin its en-
forcement  against  them.    42  U. S. C.  §7607(d)(9)(A);  see, 
e.g.,  States’  Application  15–16;  Application  for  American 
Forest  &  Paper  Association  et al.  14;  see  also  5  U. S. C. 
§706(2)(A).  An agency action qualifies as “arbitrary” or “ca-
pricious” if it is not “reasonable and reasonably explained.”  
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U. S. 414, 423 (2021).  
In  reviewing  an  agency’s  action  under  that  standard,  a 
court  may  not  “ ‘substitute  its  judgment  for  that  of  the 
agency.’ ”    FCC  v.  Fox  Television  Stations,  Inc.,  556  U. S. 
502, 513 (2009).  But it must ensure, among other things, 
that the agency has offered “a satisfactory explanation for 
its  action[,]  including  a  rational  connection  between  the