WVXU: Supreme Court temporarily blocks key air pollution regulations
Last week’s US Supreme Court decision, which temporarily blocked key air pollution regulations established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was just one in a line of recent rulings over the past two years significantly impacting the EPA’s authority to limit pollution in air and water. In last Thursday’s decision, the court ruled that the emissions-reductions standards set by the plan were likely to cause “irreparable harm” to almost half the states unless the court halted the rule pending further review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Cincinnati Law’s Professor Brad Mank spoke with WVXU about the impact of the most recent decision, stating that “The Ohio v. EPA decision will continue to worsen air quality, especially on the East Coast.
“In the short-term, this is a decision environmentalists won't like,” Mank said. “It's not good for the environment and it does show a kind of general trend that the current Supreme Court doesn't really like to give deference to agencies.”
About The Good Neighbor Plan
The EPA established the Good Neighbor Plan to ensure compliance with the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards law. To carry out the law’s mandate, the EPA required “upwind” states to reduce air pollution affecting “downwind” states. Under the Good Neighbor rule, states are first given the chance to create a plan that complies with agency’s ozone guidelines. If a state fails to submit an adequate plan, the EPA then designs a compliance plan for the state. In February 2023, the EPA determined that 23 states had not provided sufficient plans and the agency then decided to implement its own emissions-control program for those states.
Ohio, along with several other states, large industrial companies, and trade associations, challenged the EPA plan in court. They contended that the agency’s “dictatorial approach” failed to adequately consider the legal and practical implications of substituting its own plan for the state plans. The opponents also argued that the plan’s implementation would cause significant economic and operational harm, particularly by forcing states to undertake costly modifications to their power plants while judicial review is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Read more about the decision, its impact, and Professor Mank’s commentary in the story “Supreme Court temporarily blocks key air pollution regulations".
Lead photo: istockphoto.com
Related Stories
Sugar overload killing hearts
November 10, 2025
Two in five people will be told they have diabetes during their lifetime. And people who have diabetes are twice as likely to develop heart disease. One of the deadliest dangers? Diabetic cardiomyopathy. But groundbreaking University of Cincinnati research hopes to stop and even reverse the damage before it’s too late.
Is going nuclear the solution to Ohio’s energy costs?
November 10, 2025
The Ohio Capital Journal recently reported that as energy prices continue to climb, economists are weighing the benefits of going nuclear to curb costs. The publication dove into a Scioto Analysis survey of 18 economists to weigh the pros and cons of nuclear energy. One economist featured was Iryna Topolyan, PhD, professor of economics at the Carl H. Lindner College of Business.
App turns smartwatch into detector of structural heart disease
November 10, 2025
An app that uses an AI model to read a single-lead ECG from a smartwatch can detect structural heart disease, researchers reported at the 2025 Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association. Although the technology requires further validation, researchers said it could help improve the identification of patients with heart failure, valvular conditions and left ventricular hypertrophy before they become symptomatic, which could improve the prognosis for people with these conditions.